digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at chicagotribune.com

Want To Go Green? Have Fewer Children

chicagotribune.com — There are dozens of ways to go green; however, one study proposes a controversial option for families to minimize their carbon footprint.

Who dugg this? Made popular Aug 28, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

472 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • tonaros, on 08/27/2008, -25/+212What the ***** is controversial about NOT HAVING SO MANY DAMN KIDS??
  • inactive, on 08/28/2008, -10/+107There's nothing controversial about saying white families should have fewer children. It's a very politically correct thing to say.

    But try saying that single black women on welfare should have fewer children, and you'll invite the moral indignation of the politically correct.
  • greengardenchic, on 08/28/2008, -10/+92It's not that Mexican immigrants are more fertile. They're Catholics. Breeders by religious expectations. A group of people who have been taught that any form or birth control is bad.

    Try to change that belief and you might have some real results.
  • wrxpert, on 08/27/2008, -14/+84I wish people would more often consider not having children or just having less children.
  • MysticSavage, on 08/28/2008, -3/+59Like Chris Rock said "Bitch, stop *****!! Put the dick down!"
  • Lucas123, on 08/28/2008, -6/+52I'm doing my part. So far, none.
  • inactive, on 08/28/2008, -21/+56This is political correctness taken to ludicrous lengths. The native-born population in both Britain and the U.S. is breeding at below-replacement levels, and immigration is responsible for all growth. If the true goal of the environmentalists was to reduce carbon emissions, they would advocating limiting immigration.

    Importing millions of highly-fertile immigrants from the developing world will increase the carbon footprint much, much more than convincing a few white families to have one fewer child will reduce it. That's just common sense. The true goal here is not to reduce the carbon footprint, but to reduce the European genetic footprint.
  • SushiCW, on 08/28/2008, -14/+47If we avoid having kids to save the planet, who are we saving it for?
  • sgtawol, on 08/28/2008, -14/+45I think a pre-requisite to going on welfare should be snippy snippy for both mom and dad.
  • inactive, on 08/28/2008, -18/+44It seems that many people refuse to recognize that we have reached a point in human evolution where having children is not a necessity for survival. If people love children so much, why not adopt one who doesn't have a family? It's usually because they think the world needs a "mini-me" of themselves because they would be a gift for us all and an asset for humanity.
  • radiofrequency, on 08/28/2008, -11/+37Eco-facism is going mainstream.
  • Adahn, on 08/28/2008, -3/+26Spay and neuter, folks. Spay and neuter.
  • diceau, on 08/28/2008, -2/+24You can't be serious. We complain about PC because it gets taken to extremes and it's biased. As Bill Maher once made note of, when you say women are stronger than men, everyone cheers, but when you say men are stronger than women, everyone boos. That's bias anchored as far from reality as possible.

    The popular media and political correctness must die, neither are serving their purpose.
  • thePhallex, on 08/28/2008, -0/+21Sometimes around town I see hispanic mothers with several crying babies around them -- they never look happy. It's sad. To think that it all could've been prevented with simple birth control...
  • Hosalabad, on 08/28/2008, -7/+28Well said.
  • Hetman, on 08/28/2008, -5/+25I am just so confused. I do not understand why people go bat ***** crazy when you tell them they should not reproduce like a bunch of animals. We have rational thought for a reason. If you cannot afford to take care of kids thier are many different kinds of birth control you can use not to have kids. It is really that simple.
  • inactive, on 08/27/2008, -16/+34Should we follow China's lead?
  • Coffeedemon, on 08/28/2008, -8/+26Nice... will you be reading from Class-Based Eugenics at the local rally?
  • chadpryor, on 08/28/2008, -4/+21"Even in the United States, birthrates, which had fallen to around 1.85 children per non-Hispanic white woman, are now about 2.1 children per U.S. couple, thanks to Hispanic migration."

    Did anyone else catch this at the end of the article? There's hardly any subtlety to it, the writer might as well be saying: "Hey Mexicans, thanks for popping out kids like a factory line."
  • joeanon, on 08/28/2008, -5/+22The problem is all the smart people who grasp renewable energy will want to have less children to lessen the burden on the planet.

    While the dumb masses continue to have 2-4 children and the democracy just gets dumber and dumber.

    Smart people need to BREED LIKE RABBITS and use your intelligence to accumulate and MAINTAIN wealth, not just spend it on dumb ass vacations or fancy wannabe rich people *****. Most American's biggest problems are lack of overall business or accounting knowledge. We make a lot of money over the years, but have very little to show at the end. There should be better finance management services for US citizens it would help much of these credit crunches and housing loan foreclosures because most of those people should have went for smaller houses with lower utility bills and lower monthly payments.

    National education probably wouldn't hurt nor would it cost but a tiny fraction of the US military budget. The biggest problem in the US might be generating interest and awareness. I think the government needs better outreach programs to people who basically just need a little big of career or financial guidance. Kind of like a social worker accountant job broker who you can use when you want to change careers or get unbiased investment advice.

    If we don't switch over to algae biofuel or some other renewable and portable energy form then all these big houses are going to continue to decline in value, not just because of a weak housing market, but because utility costs now matter twice as much and while average US home size has increased over 30 years, much of the energy spike has happened in only a few years. A weak US dollar is the main problem and national debt from GOP spending is the main culprit.

  • inactive, on 08/28/2008, -4/+21A single black women on welfare should have fewer children.
    Bring on the moral indignation of the politically correct.
  • VintageMud, on 08/28/2008, -6/+22Where is he wrong? I mean seriously, if you can't afford to support yourself, how can you afford to support kids?
  • ThaDRD, on 08/28/2008, -4/+20Because its easier to indoctrinate a child into a religion than it is to go out and try to recruit/convince people to convert. Children are automatic members of whatever church their parents are members of.
  • MattB123, on 08/28/2008, -2/+18I think something less permanent, like birth control would be a better solution but it would be a touchy subject.
    Permanently sterilizing someone who may be have fallen on hard times temporarily does not seem reasonable.
  • stonebear, on 08/28/2008, -3/+18Good luck with that.
  • emalen, on 08/28/2008, -0/+14Except that what the writer said is correct - it's not based on racial bias but fact.
  • OneLess, on 08/28/2008, -6/+20Probably not, but it wouldn't hurt for people to voluntarily have fewer children. I've always thought adoption was a better option anyway since there's so many children out there already without homes.
  • inactive, on 08/28/2008, -8/+22If the stereotypical pro-science pro-environment people don't have more kids, then the the % of pro-religion people will continue to overtake the united states... cause they're having tons of kids (and indoctrinating them in vacation bible school at birth)
  • timewarp424, on 08/28/2008, -9/+22Instead of having fewer children, just don't have any. Let the human race die off and then we'll have a carbon footprint of zero. Is this really what you want? Are humans beings less important than "saving" the Planet Earth? I thought the whole point of saving the Earth was to save it for the future generations to come. I'm not advocating against the green movement, but I am advocating against these extremist positions. Humans cause pollution, but it's more important that we exist than "saving" the Earth.
  • SteelChicken, on 08/28/2008, -11/+24no more kids. adopt.
    this one problem causes SO many others.
  • kolop1, on 08/28/2008, -2/+15You don't need to force people into population control...You just have to scare them into it.
  • thePhallex, on 08/28/2008, -3/+16Seriously. Not trying to put blame in one area, but I've noticed lots of religious families have waaaaaaaaayyy to many babies, and for what?
  • Hetman, on 08/28/2008, -5/+17It is not about Eugenics. It is about having only as many kids as you can afford to take care of. Most people who are rich tend to have less kids. Does that not ruin your whole Eugenics argument?
  • pinchduck, on 08/28/2008, -0/+12Same reason that limiting your speech, right to assemble, or to buy and sell property is controversial: It takes away a basic human right from the individual and gives it to an easily corruptible body (any government office).
  • MattB123, on 08/28/2008, -1/+13Pro choice isn't necessarily pro abortion.
  • themadrammer, on 08/18/2009, -6/+18 You guys realize that its normal to have 8-12 kids in Asia/Africa per family?

    So...if the West stops having kids, the East will just inherit it, in about 50 years. Good luck with that.
  • naner, on 08/28/2008, -1/+13And believe me when I say we all appreciate it.
  • inactive, on 08/28/2008, -1/+13This is a slippery-slope fallacy. Fallacies are generally not regarded favorably.
    It's not that anyone wants to actually forcefully stop you from having more than two or three kids. Your overemotional overreaction is completely unnecessary; it's merely a suggestion. Some people a little more cool-headed and rationally-minded might take this advice and choose to have three children instead of eight. We're already hovering around the "seven billion people on this planet" mark; do we really need so many more?
    TL;DR
    Control yourself. Emotional outbursts do not do you any good.
  • naner, on 08/28/2008, -1/+12To increase the size of God's army!
  • chrissku, on 08/28/2008, -8/+19Population control will come naturally. Life has an Eb and flow. It will balance itself out.
  • leposava, on 08/28/2008, -3/+14I agree. I also notice something of a trend towards the most unsavory people being the ones who crank out the most.
  • TVarmy, on 08/28/2008, -2/+13Population balances itself out with war and starvation. Frankly, I'd rather just use a condom and cut off a bit of sensation instead of running out of food or having to die in war.
  • funk13, on 08/28/2008, -1/+12What does an E-flat have to do with life?

    Seriously, though, life will balance out but it is going to take a lot of death (read: wars, disease, and all things unpleasant) to which all of us are susceptible. So life balancing the effects of over-population is not going to come without its share of pain and agony.
  • bratterscain, on 08/28/2008, -2/+13Yes, but do you want it to come naturally in the form of disease or lack or resources rather than limiting child births?
  • inactive, on 08/28/2008, -1/+12Your 4 kids will go on to have 10 kids, those will go on to have 20.

    Your recycling water bottles doesn't even come close.

    We're overpopulated by 4 billion people.
  • populistless, on 08/27/2008, -13/+24because the way to save the world is to let the religious right have all the kids, sounds reasonable
  • AROERS, on 08/28/2008, -2/+12Have as many as you can take care of. Some shouldn't breed in the first place.
  • bratterscain, on 08/28/2008, -4/+14VintageMud, because snipping lasts a lifetime whereas welfare sometimes doesn't. Though I'd agree that if you can't finance kids, you shouldn't be having them.
  • axiomflash, on 08/28/2008, -2/+12You don't get the ***** point do you?
    All of your 4 kids are going to spend their lifetimes consuming. Creative twice as much waste and taking up twice as much space as you and your wife.
  • vypergts, on 08/28/2008, -1/+11Meh, the Chinese weren't the first. Jonathan Swift was ahead of his time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 483 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.