Comments on: GINK Is the New DINK: Going Childfree for Mother Nature

By: More Pregnant Mothers Are Choosing Not to Parent Additional Children | eparent.co.uk

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 06:24:56 +0000

[…] as our planet’s population passes the 7 billion mark, society is beginning to frown on bigger families for environmental […]

By: Going solar…not going green… « The Lazy Randonneur

Going solar…not going green… « The Lazy Randonneur — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:16:45 +0000

[…] have one less kid…lol…I’m only partially joking, but that’s material for ano… […]

By: Jeremy Buller

Jeremy Buller — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:02:00 +0000

Welcome, I’m the Devil’s Advocate:
Going Childfree is one of the worst ideas that Ameri-Euros had wrought throughout this whole Green Movement. I’m all for not using more natural resources than Nature can make, and keeping our breathing air clean, but here are some huge downfalls and flaws caused by such an idea.
(1) Overpopulation is a rampant myth when referring to Ameri-Europe. In the USA, the amount of fertile, useful, and unused land that exists is staggering. For God’s Sake, California holds 1/8th of the USA Population, yet is only about 1/40th of the Total Area of the USA, and no one is saying California is overpopulated at this point, go there, there is plenty of space!
(2)Say this Idea does take off. Let’s take it to the extreme – environmentalists = no kids, “don’t cares” = kids. So that means environmentalists will pass away with no continuation of their genes, yet those who don’t care will continue to create new genes. Now who’s environmentalist? Ameri-Europe. Who’s not? Most of the rest of the world. Now if the only Environmentalist cultures die, will that help out the pollution and resource-depletion? Absolutely not.

Environmentalists should PROMOTE child-birth. Child-birth will mean a higher population, meaning more people to go out and do good and influence others. If you have good genes, you will pass them on. If you have bad genes, you will wither and your gene pool will evaporate. Nature, in a word. There are better ways (many which aren’t being explored, by the way) to cut pollution and help keep resources, but this is a terrible idea.

By: Annie Biggs

Annie Biggs — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 00:20:00 +0000

It’s a huge commitment, shaping a person’s mind, life, memories, and a decision that should be take seriously. Parenting is very important.
I chose not to be a parent not because I don’t “want” kids or like them, I chose a challenging career ,and I could not give children my full attention which they deserve.. Haven’t missed it a bit. And I applaud those folks who decide it is what they want.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:31:00 +0000

I have a difficult time understanding how a critical thinker could equate not having children for environmental reasons to “offing themselves”. If someone is never born they cannot be hurt correct? Yet clearly if someone is alive they can be hurt by being “removed”. Frankly I am guessing those openly hostile to childless or only child couples are driven by an urge to justify their (or their family’s) lifestyle/beliefs.

And I would like to point out that there is a mountain of evidence that suggests that much of what is considered “problem solving intelligence” is driven by genetics, although obviously environmental factors are extremely important as well. Normally I provide links etc, but basic research skills will allow others to find the information for themselves on this subject. Life is not the happy go lucky equality hour, nature has a few winners and many “losers”.

Does this mean that adoption is a poor choice? No it is a excellent choice and should probably be done by a larger percentage of the population. But do not use fake egalitarian biology as evidence, stick to real science.

As a final note I would like to add that A) Intelligence is not the only factor in ones “worth” to the species and B) As a young adult (male) my girlfriend and I are likely to only have one child and properly invest time/resources in that one child. Not to mention it allows us given into certain “selfish” desires.

By: Grimm

Grimm — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:51:32 +0000

I have to say that this article and some of the comments made have really opened my eyes. I am concerned for the environment as well as over population issues.

I am so concerned with these issues from a childfree aspect I wrote a paper on it for one of my classes. I did cite this article as well as a few comments(with proper credit for everything).

By: Karen

Karen — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 00:42:31 +0000

I’m so glad to have read this article. For so long I was thinking (and so were my friends) that I was the only person who had, or was thinking about not having children or at least adopting to lessen my carbon footprint. I already feel that everything I eat, drink, and breath is probably already to some degree polluted or toxic. Its sad to see the oil rig spills, the diminishing wild life, the plastic ‘islands’ in the oceans, and the tanker that plowed through the Great Barrier Reef recently just to name a few of the things we as humans are doing to harm the Earth. I am somewhat young (early 20’s) and it is hard to give up thinking I will probably never have a baby that looks and acts just like me but I believe it is one of the best gifts to give back to the Earth. And I hope that people really don’t compare me to Hitler per the previous comments and think that I would want to kill off anyone but just not add any more.

By: Trent

Trent — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:25:52 +0000

“As far as the gene pool argument goes- children can very often overcome and go beyond an unhealthy way of living even if they were raised that way. I myself think very differently than my parents do and have a very different set of convictions (one of which is my environmental responsibility). I think if humanity is to move forward and thrive in a healthy environment, the key is education-even and especially in the lowest stratum of society.”

Often, this is the result of parenting. People who generally try to be good parents do NOT create clones of themselves. They instead try to create self-thinking, self-functioning individuals. A good parent gives their child a garden to grow in. Poor parents demand that the children grow a certain way or allow the garden to become fallow.

That you’re NOT a duplicate of your parents and that you’re well spoken says quite a lot of good things about the parenting job they did.

By: Krystina

Krystina — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 06:25:56 +0000

Overpopulation and the many problems that come with it are why I’ve chosen to be child-free. Yes, I am an environmentalist and I cringe when I see how humans spread across the planet, eliminating everything in our path. But there’s also the issue of the many orphaned or abandoned children who already exist. If my partner and I feel able to raise a child well, we will adopt. Thanks for writing this article!

By: Erica

Erica — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:45:11 +0000

I would like to see a discussion on what war does to the environment. And I’d like to have someone do the math and compare the benefit of no war vs. the benefit of no children (environmentally speaking, of course). I have no information to back this but I do have a feeling that war is a huge detriment to the environment.

As far as this discussion goes, it’s very interesting indeed. As far as the gene pool argument goes– children can very often overcome and go beyond an unhealthy way of living even if they were raised that way. I myself think very differently than my parents do and have a very different set of convictions (one of which is my environmental responsibility). I think if humanity is to move forward and thrive in a healthy environment, the key is education–even and especially in the lowest stratum of society.