What’s the Matter with Kids?

Environmentalists suggest population control to achieve their goals

By Christopher W. Jensen

I consider myself an environmentalist. I recycle as much as possible, avoid littering, and turn off lights and running faucets. By limiting waste and conserving resources, I am helping to preserve Earth’s natural beauty for future generations. Of course, my efforts pale in comparison to the actions of many others, which range from buying overpriced organic foods to campaigning for the elimination of fossil fuel use. 

Environmentalism, however, has crossed a new line. In a recent BBC report, the British-based environmental group Optimum Population Trust (OPT) urged British families to limit themselves to two children in order to limit carbon dioxide production and combat global warming. OPT spokesperson Jonathon Porritt stated, “We will work out way towards a position that says having more than two children is irresponsible.” The OPT argues that by slowing Earth’s population growth, dangerous overpopulation will be averted, leaving more resources for the existing 7 billion humans and creating less pollution.

It is highly disturbing that having three or more children is now perceived as “irresponsible.” Family planning is an issue that is solely within the jurisdiction of the parents, which the OPT realizes. Whether parents choose to have one, two, or several children, it is their decision alone, assuming they can raise all of them in a responsible and caring manner. Imputing environmental irresponsibility on large families is unfair and unethical. Why should a father of four feel even slightly guilty for the existence of his children? Children are the greatest source of pride and joy for parents. A large and robust family has historically been a point of honor for parents. It is extremely worrisome that the OPT is now portraying a sizeable progeny as the biological equivalent of a Hummer dealership. 

Even if we were to accept the OPT’s argument for smaller families, its effects will be felt by the wrong nations. The OPT blissfully hypothesizes, “think what a difference it would make if all the world’s parents decided to ‘stop at two’ children.” However, the countries most likely to limit their population growth are the industrialized nations, since they are sufficiently developed to function without as many people. American farmers, for example, can grow vast amounts of food on their own because they have equipment to do most of the work. Japanese factories need fewer workers on their assembly lines because robots are shouldering many of the tasks. However, for a farmer in a less developed nation, every child he or she has is needed to harvest crops. Around the world, whole families slave in factories to earn enough to make ends meet, similar to the plight of immigrant families in the United States at the turn of the century. To people currently in such situations, a plea to have fewer children to stave off climate change would be a ludicrous suggestion. Not surprisingly, the OPT projects that “the population of most developed countries is expected to remain almost unchanged, but that of less developed regions to rise from 5.6 billion in 2009 to 7.9 billion in 2050.” 

We may take a further lesson from China’s One Child Policy, which was implemented in 1979 in hopes of staving off overpopulation that would hinder China’s economic development. While China has clearly made significant economic progress during the thirty years since the One Child Policy took effect, it has come at significant cost. Many parents, limited to only have one child, preferred to have a son, even if it meant aborting a female infant first. While a debate about the ethics of abortion is beyond the scope of this article, it is not unreasonable to say that this selective abortion is at least partly responsible for the current gender imbalance in China. According to another BBC report, there will be approximately 30 million men unable to find wives by 2020. It is historically evident that societies with large gender imbalances are unstable (early colonial Virginia and the Wild West are two examples). While the OPT’s plan may not result in the same problem, we must realize that an attempt at widespread population control can have additional, unforeseeable effects besides thinning the global population.

The One Child Policy reveals another major problem with the OPT’s plan: it takes too much time. Many models of global warming project a significant rise in Earth’s temperature during the 21st century. In the spring of 2008 National Geographic warned that the North Pole might be ice-free by the end of the summer. If global warming is descending fast upon us, as environmental advocates such as the OPT claim, we need to act quickly. However, despite the government-enforced One Child Policy, the population of China is not projected to decrease until at least 2050, nearly a century after its inception. On the other hand, the OPT proposes that families around the world voluntarily limit themselves to two children each. In light of China’s example, the OPT’s plan is woefully inadequate. 

The Optimum Population Trust’s call for voluntary global population control is both ethically alarming and insufficient to meet their projected goals. Any efforts that aim to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions must consider a more realistic and effective solution.