I don’t think having children is the only incentive to take care of the environment. People with no children are not just crapping up the Earth, not giving a damn. That’s kind of silly to think that.

Yes, there are other incentives, that’s why I am having this discussion. I would love humans to stop killing animals in such cruel ways.

I wouldn’t think having a child would be necessary criteria for caring about future generations as much as a caring nature. I am sure there are people who have sired children who don’t have this nature thus could care less. As for politicians (which I take everything they say with a grain of salt) I suppose they are talking about the future of the world not necessarily one’s own children.

@airowDee maybe you should pose a question regarding the senseless killing of animals, I am sure this would be a great discussion.

It’s hard to tell how many more people earth’s environment can sustain. If anything, childfree people are helping the environment by not contributing to humanity’s exponential growth rate.

People can care about things morally, without having a personal stake in it.

I don’t have children and I CARE. It never even occured to me that it was dependent on whether I personally have children or not. I care in the same way I care about people who are suffering even if I don’t know them.

My uterus is not open for business period. But I know that if the world is going to get better (and I want it to) it has to be because we and younger generations make it so. Consequently I’m very critical of the flaws in the education system and so on. A small (slightly egotistical) part of me hopes that by not adding a kid to the pot the other kids will be more likely to have enough resources available to serve their educational needs.

I also plan on be an exceptional aunt.

I don’t think that argument makes any more sense than the “we can’t be moral without God” one. Both are obviously untrue if you look at how people behave in life: neither atheists nor the childless act with any less morality as a group.

Absolutely. Case in point: I’m a 26 year old scientist who studies the ozone hole. I want the hole to go away. I don’t have children, but I still can make measurements and “care” about these things for the sake of the future.

Childless couples have a smaller carbon footprint than those families with children. We have already made our plan for a greener future by not bringing any more hungry mouths into the world. Our sacrifice often goes unheeded by the people with a string of brats in tow.

Every child becomes an adult, and the amount of resources used per person adds up. If you have ten kids, and I have none, who do you think is using up more of the Earth’s resources? I could drive a Hummer that burns a quart of oil a week and still do less damage to the environment than you and all your offspring do collectively.

Think about it.

@Psychedelic_Zebra What does Evelyn think of parenthood vs childlessness?

@fundevogel Evelyn says Life is about choices, your results may vary.

I believe there is something very deep in our psyches that not only want ourselves and our progeny to live, but also the entire species. Lots of people don’t have children but care enormously about the world, the future of all of us. Many give up having children so they can work or give themselves fully to what they think is important. Those goals go beyond the lifetime of the individual.

@sk it sounds corny, but I have planted trees with the intention of having other people sit under them. I will have been dead long before they are mature enough to sit under.

@Psychedelic_Zebra – You are so eloquent – GA’s for you and kudos as well. I’m going shopping for my Hummer this weekend!

Some people intentionally don’t have children because they are thinking of the future generations. Overpopulation, dwindling resources, increased pollution, the fact that there are so many children without loving homes already.. those are all reasons why some people choose, thoughtfully, I might add, not to breed.

Of course.

I am childless (and will probably remain that way) and I care. I have always been more worried about animals than humans though which is my main incentive for caring about the enviroment. It breaks my heart everytime a large number of trees are hacked down to build on the land.

@Leanne1986 not to sound cruel or callous, but having more sympathy for animals than humans smacks of anthropomorphic arrogance. So if a puppy and an 18 month old toddler were on a railroad track with a train coming, you’d save the dog first? I don’t understand that mindset at all.

@Psychedelic_Zebra I agree, theres nothing enlightened about that type of mindset. IMO it makes someone seem like a psycho if they care about trees than people.

Before judging, think about it this way.. when was the last time you heard of a tree hurting people? A bison destroying the environment? A trout conning old people out of their money? An eagle abusing its children? And so on..

I would save the baby first, or both at the same time, but I can absolutely see why someone would have more affinity for animals than for people.

@MissAnthrope If someone would save a dog before a baby, then they are just as bad or worse as the examples of bad people you provided.

In your opinion. You have an anthropocentric worldview. Others do not. One is not automatically better than the other, though I know you disagree.

Its not a matter of opinion. If someone saves a dog before a child, with the risk to the child being death, they are a fucking scumbag.

Hokay, then.

gotta love fluther!

saying something even slightly conservative = flammed to hell.

saying that it’s ok to save a dog before a baby = a perfectly acceptable viewpoint that should be respected.

I think your point is valid, too, but I take umbrage at your tone and language. I find it nearly impossible to have a reasonable debate/discussion with someone so convinced of their own rightness, not to mention the tone/language thing is a turn off. Lastly, if you think the above is being “flammed to hell”, you have had a relatively sheltered internet experience!

no, I was referring to other experiences on this site. I find a huge bias here in that radical left wing ideals are treated with respect while even remotley right wing ideals are derided. obviously this does not reflect on every person here, just the majority. In regard to what we were talking about Ive said what I wanted to say.

@hookecho Saving a dog is conservative?

@JLeslie I think you misread/misinterpreted some things..

@hookecho Oh, ok I reread. My mistake.

@hookecho I have to agree with your observation that those of a conservative nature are treated less than ideally than the uber-progressives on Fluther. I’ve experienced it several times. I know others that have as well. The only thing worse than a liberal hating conservative is a conservative hating liberal. That’s why I try to hang around the independent camp, fewer collateral damages from ricochets.

@Psychedelic_Zebra – The only thing worse than a liberal hating conservative is a conservative hating liberal.

Ugh.. I seriously beg to differ.

Since I was a little 5yr old kid, I knew I didn’t want to birth any children of my own yet I grew up concerned with taking care of my immediate environment and interested in the planet as a whole. I think it’s more to do with caring about other living things and the planet that being selfish. I haven’t met any truly selfish people yet who don’t care about others.

@Psychedelic_Zebra I don’t think @Leanne1986 meant that she cares more about animals and trees than people. I think she just meant that protecting the environment is her pet cause. There are so many different things people focus on when they want help the world. Medical research, human rights, poverty, education, the arts and so much more. All of these things are important and the fact that different causes resonate with different people means as a whole we’re addressing more issues than if we only focused on world hunger or violence against women.

I definitely like most dogs better than most people.

I doubt that I will ever be in a position where I have to make a choice between saving a baby or a dog from an oncoming train. When was the last time that happened to anyone?

If I were in that situation, I would save them both. Unless it meant I would die in the process, then I don’t really know what I would do until it happens.

That is honesty and real. People always say ohhhhh I would risk my life to save the child but I just wonder, I might be frozen and stand and watch in horror. I have done a lot of introspection and I know myself pretty well, but not that well.

@MissAnthrope you’re right, they’re both equally ignorant.

@hookecho and @Psychedelic_Zebra I never once said that I would save an animal over a person. Of course I wouldn’t. I would want to save both and if I couldn’t I would save the baby but it would break my heart to have to leave the dog.

Please do not judge me because I prefer the majority of animals to the majority of people this, @hookecho does NOT make me a “scumbag”. My experiences with animals have always been better than my experiences with people so I cannot help the fact that I often feel more compassion towards animals.

It is humans who have contributed the most towards the problems we are facing and are yet to face with the enviroment and it is humans that will continue to do so which also makes me feel more compssion to the animals in this situation.

Like @fundevogel said, people focus on saving the world in different ways. If we all put our efforts in the human race then other areas would be distroyed. I don’t want to see hundreds of species become extinct because of human stupidity. This is NOTHING to do with finding a baby and a dog on a train track. That is a different situation altogether.

In my culture we have a belief that says you live for the next Seven Generations. Everything you do now was influenced by those seven generations behind you and everything you do will influence those seven generations in front of you. You are responsible for those generations (whether they be your family or not). That is one incentive for those who don’t have kids.

@RedPowerLady I like that 7 generation thing, I’ll remember that one

@RareDenver Thanx :)

Not particularly.

We chose to adopt existing children rather than create more children. That is our form of caring for future generations in terms of reproduction.

However, as a biologist I care very much about the environment and the other organisms that share it with us, so I do what I can to minimize my negative impact on it and them.

@Darwin – great solution and great answer.

@Darwin I was under the impression you attempted to have biological children first.

We tried, but not very hard. When it came to a choice between spending the insurance company’s money to be able to make our own, or spending our own money to adopt, it was a no brainer for us. As my daughter’s birth mother said, she was just God’s way of getting our baby to us.

It is cheaper to make your own than it is to adopt, but the end result is the same – beautiful kids whose college tuition you have to raise somehow.

@Darwin my husbands company will give you $5,000 towards adoption, but their health insurance won’t give you a penny towards fertility treatments. Personally I think they should give you $5,000 to spend however you want on trying to get a child, why does it matter to them?

@Leanne1986 sorry for any confusion in this thread, no accusation was intended.

@Psychedelic_Zebra No probs

I don’t have children and I don’t particulary care about making the world a better place for generations to come, but I do care about the planet because it is a gift from God and it has been my home for quite a while now.

Also, I would just add that manys parents are only interested in making the world a better place for their children and could care less about how their choices impact other children. In this sense, many times their actions may be less green than you would think.