When People and several other popular media outlets heralded the news that the Duggar family in Arkansas welcomed their 17th child earlier this month, my reaction was not necessarily that of awe or amazement. It was anxiety. While the Duggar family is certainly an anomaly, it would become more than slightly problematic if everyone exercises their reproductive rights and simply has as many children as they physically can.
A recent study from the Optimum Population Trust pointed out that tactics for combatting climate change "almost universally ignore population: it is seen as too sensitive and too controversial." Personal birth rate and contraceptive choice are contentious subjects for many people because reproductive decisions often result from religious or cultural traditions. However, this decision has a huge impact on more than just one's own family. In his hugely popular book The End Of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time, Jeffrey Sachs explains how the most poor countries, "are stuck with fertility rates of five or more. On average, a mother is raising at least two girls, and in some cases three girls or more. In those circumstances, national populations double each generation." Numerous organizations that work in developing countries have shown that as women have increased access to education and work, the number of children they bear wanes. In certain parts of the industrialized world, such as Japan and parts of Europe, citizens are concerned that these birth rates are decreasing too much, to a rate below replacement level. I haven't been convinced that a small decline in birth rate is such a bad thing. Obviously a Children of Men-type situation is undesirable, but so is having an increasing population for the next 50 years with quickly decreasing amounts of resources. 36% of India's population was found to be under the age of 15 in 2005 (www.globalhealthfacts.org), meaning that a large number of the country's inhabitants are just entering their reproductive age. As populations like India and China benefit from waves of economic growth along with population growth, their carbon footprint will undoubtedly become heavier. Which brings us back to the Duggars, who are apparently featured on the Discovery Health Channel. According to the channel's website, the Duggars do approximately 200 loads of laundry a month and have used 90,000 diapers (and probably have done many more since the birth of their new Duggar). They also built a 7,000 square foot home for their growing brood. These "fun facts", as the website dubs them, are just further evidence of mounting stress on our environmental resources. Regardless of whether the Duggar family laundry machine and dryer are the most energy efficient models on the market or they use biodegradable or cloth diapers, their daily habits are having an intense impact on the earth. Perhaps it's unfair to target one family who seem to be unaware of the impact they are having as well as the potential impact their offspring could have (Imagine if each of them had 17 children of their own!). But I think it's this singular mentality that is a problem relating to many people and their perceived impacts of personal actions on climate change: "It doesn't matter if I don't recycle/change my lightbulbs/start taking the bus to work." There are certainly a variety of actions we can take to help better manage the resources we do have: live more sustainably, consume less, change our dietary habits. Too many global citizens seem to expect too much from our tired, stressed out Earth: they'd like to continue producing as many children as they feel like, continue consuming as much as their wallets allow, and continue believing that the scientists or politicians will figure out a way to make it all work out before it's too late. I'll keep my fingers crossed, but in the meantime, I'll try to keep in mind the Optimum Population Trust's idea when I'm doing my own family planning: "A non-existent person has no environmental footprint."
