Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]
It's no secret that there are more and more of us every day. From fewer than a billion 200 years ago to more than 6.6 billion people on the planet today. And the U.N. expects more than nine billion by mid-century.
This kind of exponential population growth has consequences for the planet, from stretched natural resources, such as fresh water supplies, to burgeoning levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
A new study by statistics professors at Oregon State University finds that the biggest impact a U.S. citizen can have on this climate change problem is perhaps not so much surprising as difficult to accept: have fewer children.
By their calculations, every American child born today will add roughly 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere under current conditions. For comparison, a Chinese child would add roughly one fifth that amount while a boy born in Bangladesh will add 1/160th.
Having one fewer child would reduce a family's climate burden 20 times more than driving a fuel-efficient car or using energy-saving appliances, according to this statistical analysis. That doesn't seem to be stopping anyone in developed countries like the U.S. New research published in Nature this week shows that birth rates in the most developed countries are rising again.
Of course, who can judge the right number for human population? But a little family planning might be the best measure of an environmentalist and another baby boom could be bad news for the planet.
—David Biello
See what we're tweeting about
41 Comments
Add CommentAre you really suggesting that it is less ethical for Americans to have children than people in countries that are already overcrowded and relatively poor, like those in southeast Asia?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about when those countries become more industrially developed? Also, your reasoning suggests that we should close our doors to immigration because once they become Americans, they will increase their pollution accordingly.
To suggest that we should not perpetuate our heritage out of self loathing and flagellation because our neighbors drive SUVs, crank their A/Cs, and eat meat by the pounds is truly frightening. It scares me that an official Scientific American contributor believes this.
jonderry:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe got to face facts. Massive homo sapien population growth is the single cause driving loss of biodiversity, climate change and the sixth extinction.
Do you want us to survive as a species? It does not really matter in on a galactic time scale.
Knowledge is an end in itself for some of us, surviving as a species for at least as long as the dinosaurs did will increase our understanding of the universe perhaps to the point we might all want to kill ourselves anyway. But that's not what matters its the journey that counts.
Fertility needs to be lowered, more so in south-east Asia than in the developed world. As we become the most abundant species on planet earth in our size group, we shall become hosts to more and more micro-life forms seeking safe habitats. Not a problem is you are not part of the adaptation phase of the transition.
Lower fertility by educating people, (not by spreading pathogen induced sterility) save the remaining biodiversity, and enjoy a good quality simple life.
professors at Oregon State University have been the greatest danger to the people of the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisoh please! Are you for real - the greatest danger you say. Then you need to do a little more reflection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh please - you really must look around, reflect, observe - they are just reporting data!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI could not agree more with this article. I am so happy that this issue is finally receiving publicity. All countries with an average birth rate of greater than 2.000000 are part of the problem and that includes the U.S. Why not offer free vasectomies? I would never suggest that people not have children or abort....just a little family planning and a realization that a decision to have more than 2 children is bad for the planet and contributing to exponential population growth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I essentially agree with the article, there is a deeper point to consider. Yes, more people yields more consuming. But have the authors considered that we consume too much junk in the first place? Seriously, we buy things just to use them once and throw them away. Why not go back to cloth diapers and wash them? (Save water with good washing systems, or use non-desalinated sea water, perhaps.) Use a refillable lighter instead of the Bic. Recycle EVERYTHING. We don't need five TVs in the house. Stop making CDs/DVDs/etc and just download your entertainment. And yes, stop breading so dang much. Before you complain about what I'm saying, keep in mind that I am a capitalist pig. And I am pro human and pro comfort. But I also believe in moderation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe x-number of horsemen of the apocalypse are simply painful ways of population control. To avoid such pain, and to protect our species, we need to back off on our wasteful ways. You want an iPod/iPhone/Palm Pre/G-Phone in every pocket and two cars in every garage? Fine, so do I. Just don't replace them every year, or even every three years. (My T-Mobile MDA isthree years old and my Ford truck is almost six.) I admit to having, for myself, not the roommates, two PCs and three laptops at home. I use them for research and most are repurposed older machines. And one of them keeps me from having to buy a CD or DVD ever again.
Oh, and my pet project: tag-and-release Norplant! :) (I'm mostly kidding)
There are incredible benefits to having as many children as possible. From tax credits to welfare benefits. Not to mention a greater possibility of being taken care of in old age. Why is our insurance premium the same for one child or 10 children? We should tax the detriment to society from having more than one child, not reward it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHahaha! Absolutely agreed!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWant to make people cut back on smoking? Tax the heck out of cigarettes. Drinking? Tax alcohol. Breeding? Tax the children (via the parents, obviously). Perhaps allow the standard tax breaks for one or two children, then remove one of the breaks if you have a third and the other break for a fourth (thus zero cumulative tax benefit). More than that? Tax each subsequent child at a punitive rate.
Of course, what do you do for the poor families who already cannot afford much by way of taxes, let alone raising children? That's a very touchy subject. Some might say take the children away while others would say leave them with their natural parents despite the risk of the children being harmed by a poor environment, maybe to the point of becoming criminals in some cases (anybody could, but economically disadvantaged children are at greater risk). Some might even suggest sterilization.
So, if you tax "too many children", the middle-class gets nailed again.
Of course, taxation as a tool for limiting something doesn't always work; the rich have loopholes and money, but they also tend to breed less. Similarly, people in industrialized nations also tend to breed less. So 'green' industrialization would be the optimum solution.
PS: In my previous comment, I goofed and used 'breading' in stead of the correct word 'breeding'.
Probably the best way to avoid "polluting" would be to take all those who are poor and march them off. Then all those who are cripple or could not possibly contribute to society and march them off as well. Then, all the old and decrepit and do the same. Kinda like a world like Logan's Run.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh wait, that is what the Democrats are trying to do with this Obamacare garbage.
This "study" is a farce. Obviously Holdren's book is still in circulation. I am sure that this "study" is comprised for more political purposes than "science".
What next, is this magazine going to endorse forced sterilization of whole populations? How about certain sectors or races?
I am appalled that this magazine has gone downhill.
I was a subscriber for over 30 years until this smoldering pile of filth became overlly political and basically sucking the teat of AGW "consensus".
Too bad. It once was a great magazine. Now, no more.
Can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em! Birth control should be free! End the tax bias towards large family size and stop encouraging irresponsible reproduction. It's usually carelessness that leads to all those babies anyway. I don't consider that very nobel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course I agree with the article, but there's no right number of kids to have. First, eliminate tax deductions for kids and make all kinds of contraceptives, abortion and Right to Die laws available and encouraged. While we're at it, find more excuses for capital punishment, starting with the criminals at the top. Then tax kids by the square of the number per mother. If you want to be represented in future generations, one is enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis magazine is wonderful and interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis magazine is wonderful and interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would understand this better if I had a link to the model used to make the prediction of 9441 tons over next some 70 years (avg life expectancy of a child). Also want to see the error bar, the number of significant digits, and confidence interval behind this number. I have some doubts that you can obtain 4 significant digits for any model that is forecasting about 70 years out. Creating a model, which would need to employ cummulative effects of small rare events would make a great Masters or PHd study. And most interesting would not be the number but how sensitive the model is to small changes to the input factors. Run those monte carlo simulations and see what sensitivity this number has to a variety of input factors... like technology advancements and interactions of these advancements. Compare it to models used in financial policy forecasting and see if there are breakdowns in the model do to unforeseen interactions. This may be all provided in the Scientific America (i'm not a subscriber). But if it is not, this is great opportunity to make use of the recent tools provided by mathematicians and visualize it with computers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso want to see the rate of change in carbon usage by americans, chinese, and bangledesh citizens as a function of time. A graph. Is there a crossover point in the near future of any of these countries . I would imagine china is growing in carbon usage per capita due to the pro-growth agenda of the country, but at a slower rate per capita than during the US and Europe industrial revolution. China and Bangledesh growth can take advantage of energy saving technologies already available that was unavailable during industrial revolution. In the same manner the carbon usage per capita in the US may be declining or could soon decline based on technologies introduced or soon to be introduced that allow for more food and energy with decreasing increment in carbon. Your static number comparisons seem inappropriate when the topic has to do with the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article header reads:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The best thing you can do for the planet might be having less children" but in reality this is just ONE thing we can do for the planet, and CERTAINLY not the "best" one.
What is really happening is that people are constantly trying to make money off other people, so industries market new products and convince buyers they need the product or the latest version of the product. In the process, people buy things to use them once, before they become garbage to clutter and dirten our seas and lands.
It is all about disgusting human greed and how low sellers stoop down to sell. They will say anything to make a sale and only care for their own well being, not the environment.
The article header reads:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The best thing you can do for the planet might be having less children" but in reality this is just ONE thing we can do for the planet, and CERTAINLY not the "best" one.
What is really happening is that people are constantly trying to make money off other people, so industries market new products and convince buyers they need the product or the latest version of the product. In the process, people buy things to use them once, before they become garbage to clutter and dirten our seas and lands.
It is all about disgusting human greed and how low sellers stoop down to sell. They will say anything to make a sale and only care for their own well being, not the environment.
Some things we need to do is make everything recyclable, and recycle everything that is, then purchase products which are reusable, purify waters, abominate cigarette smoke, and stop giving money (buying from) companies which do not support the environment and purchase instead from companies which are actively taking the necessary steps.
I think one should consider having fewer children. I'd like to see one of the "less" children referred to...3' tall, missing a limb or two, mentally challenged, etc....less and fewer are too loosely intermingled nowadays!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's happened to civil, scientific discussion. Many of the comments posted on this blog eerily remind me the postings that can be seen on political sites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnter Your Comment Here. Thank God somebody has finally come out and said this. It's so obvious that earths population is out of control, but nobody ever talks about having less children. By the time these kids get to be adults, there won't be enough food, water, fuel, land, or any other natural resource. Recently, it was stated that approximately 1 billion people go to sleep hungry every night. Whats it going to be like when we add another 3 or 4 billion people to the earth? Almost 17 years ago my wife and myself made a conscious decision not to add to the already over-populated planet, unfortunately it doesn't appear that there were many other people that made the same choice, it's too bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnter Your Comment Here.Enter Your Comment Here. Thank God somebody has finally come out and said this. It's so obvious that earths population is out of control, but nobody ever talks about having less children. By the time these kids get to be adults, there won't be enough food, water, fuel, land, or any other natural resource. Recently, it was stated that approximately 1 billion people go to sleep hungry every night. Whats it going to be like when we add another 3 or 4 billion people to the earth? Almost 17 years ago my wife and myself made a conscious decision not to add to the already over-populated planet, unfortunately it doesn't appear that there were many other people that made the same choice, it's too bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe solution then is obvious massive war, wipe 'em all out and let the lesser spotted eider duck take it from there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have the technology
or 'we' can license reproduction? Brrrr ... we live in interesting times.
This article is yet another example of how people are living by an archaic paradigm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no need to fear overpopulation. The human mind is designed to solve problems, and any we face we will solve. Have you ever stopped to consider that the people themselves are the real resource? (No, you haven't, because you're living by an archaic paradigm.)
People who fear overpopulation have a narrow view of humanity and its place in the universe. We have continually improved our quality of life, our ability to sustain ourselves, and our environmental efficiency. We have a survival instinct and a basic human quality that goes beyond nature. Humanity will prevail. Stop living in fear. It's not good for your complexion. ;)
I'm sure every concientious environmentalist will rush right out to get a vasectomy or tubal ligation before they pollute the world with more children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the author's view. When I consider all the habitat we have destroyed with our lawns and roads and all the resource we have consumed and trashed, I feel we have become an invasive species
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarole
Wow - and I thought the idea of Zero -population had died out long ago. Personally, I like the idea of my uglier relatives having fewer children. One, it makes me look prettier. Two, I don't have to share so many of lifes treats. Three, who really cares if my parents have 20 kids. We all love large families, look at the octomom, and Kate and Jon. Every thing polutes. Everyone dies. None of us are escaping. We could be more tolerant of the ignorant. But that would mean we need to show ourselves compassion. We are usually hardest on our selves. I learned from world travels that underpriveleged nations had higher child counts than industrialized nations for varied reasons - more hands to work ground. let us all work together to help those who don't understand the big message that while they are underpriveleged it is not the fault of the individual family but the collective faults of the community. Government faults that which it can not tax.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about the notion of economists who think that countries with low birth rates, such as those in Europe, will be far worse off in the the long run due to the fact that their population is aging and that eventually the younger generation will have to work harder to sustain their senior citizen base.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the holy grail to sustainability is striking a balance between population growth and how technology can keep pace with this growth.
Less people = a larger slice of the pie for each.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt really doesn't take a scientist to understand this concept, and it applies to everything from resources to opportunity to the amount of stress we can each put on the Earth without her kicking us off.
To those who are having a cow over the mere suggestion that we reproduce less, all I have to say is that laws and enforcement are probably not necessary, simply a greater level of awareness, and better education leading to a better ability to understand such basic facts.
You don't get it. Hopefully your children will.
I do however think that there should be credits given to those who have no children or less children. It drives me crazy that I am refused the Earned Income Credit every year simply because I refuse to reproduce - that refusal stemming from looking at what I earn, not wanting to be a burden on society, and wanting to provide everything a child needs, or have no child at all.
Meanwhile, I pay higher taxes so that people can earn huge paychecks for sitting on their butts and popping out babies, and towards all the pricey burden on society that each and every one of those children represents.
I am a person with a well-beyond average IQ, artistically and musically talented, and I could teach my children more about science, literature, mathematics, computers, and society than the best of schools could ever hope to. There are probably millions like me, not breeding, because doing so is just not a reasonable choice - while a hundred times more people with neither the financial means nor any care for education practically spew unwanted children from their nether regions - making our country and the world more unlivable by the day for the idiocy we need to put up with.
And when you add this cost: the effect on the environment, it burns me just that much more.
I am glad this fine magazine published this common sense article.
I'm sorry you don't understand, but I'm not at all surprised.
Danny59:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly the only people who make the choice to have no offspring are the intelligent minorities of our society.
I too made the same choice, but I know I dont have any children to lead the miserable life future generations will be forced to lead. Sudanese and Nigerian lifestyles will be the norm in the near future followed by extinction.
This is like the hysterically funny movie, "Idiocracy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best thing is to have a strongly negative carbon footprint. For example, I wrote a letter printed in the New York Times suggesting that Internet book sellers should put an excerpt, the contents, and the index on line. A few months later Amazon did this. So instead of a trip to a book store, the UPS truck travels a couple of blocks and drops off your book. We substitute communication for transportation. We should also substitute cyber space for heated and cooled space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWeb sites on saving energy often mention aquariums, so I have reinvented the fish bowl. I have found that I can keep many species almost completely without electricity, and only a few water changes. Five species so far have breed, none limited themselves to two children. I export fish and plants from electricity free bowls to stores, schools, and friends. Perhaps you can reinvent your hobby to use less energy. When you do put up a web site to share your results. You can find my site on Google with the words best fish for bowls.
Another thing you can do is buy the new technology, like a hybrid car. The point is not the carbon saved by car, the point is that your purchase is pushing forward the tech. The hybrid driver is far better than a bicycle rider. I do not drive myself, I ride a bike.
It is not all that hard to have a negative carbon print, and you might pass that ethic on to your children.
By the way if you want to achieve zero population growth you will need about 3 kids. You need about 2.1 kids per woman in rich countries for zero growth. But add another .5 kids to take care of 20 percent infertility. Then there are so many other reasons why your children will not produce grand children for you.
the problem is not with the future babies, it's with the way we live and how we treat the nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs sophisticated as humans like of themselves, people are simple biological organisms. Most live simply to eat, breed, & die. Not unlike bacteria on a new food source, humanity will continue to attempt to outcompete everything for resources, well after its overpopulation has become a detriment to all including itself. That we have gigantic social orders which 2/3 of the world subscribe to, encouraging unrestrained breeding with no end in sight. Disease? Famine? Destruction of planets life-supporting environment? Who cares! Maybe holy jeebus will save you from the consequences of your actions. ...or maybe those wicked, godless scientists will continue to work to try to find solutions to enable you to live happy, primitive lives, selfishly squirting out offspring and strangling yourselves even further.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd to think our stupid species had so much potential to rise above. Oh well, enjoy view of from the rear of the extinction, suckers!
Translate that in arabic and see what response you get. I'll bet some will call it hate speech.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRuth Bader Ginsberg said she thought abortion was all about population control. So if the government run health care plan actually passes, the increase in abortion should help you to accomplish your goals, and those of some of the "Czars".
By the way, the new numbers on climate change show virtually no increase in temperature over the century, Very little increase in sea levels, but a higher agricultural productivity rate because of the increased CO2. Looks like we'll have more food to feed the masses - unless we try to make fuel out of it.
And, most Westerner population growth is negative, so your focus really is on the 3rd world.
How many ants can you get on an apple?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many ants can you get onto an apple?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason to LIMIT your reproduction is to show genuine love for your child and for the rest of the world. The only responsible course for us ALL is one woman with no more than one child, for a few hundred years. That will give the rest of life on our SHARED planet a chance to survive us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. population was 180 Million in 1960, is 307 Million today, and will reach 439 Million by 2050. Some of this ridiculous increase is due to immigration, but it is also due to the fact that a whopping 28.3 % of U.S. women have three or more children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Lee Bruce:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't let the politicians and media fool you. Your carbon footprint is not the problem, its the number of carbon footprints that is the problem.
All life on earth is inter-related; one species outputs are another species input. That is why we need biodiversity. We do not need zero population growth we need to reduce our population to bring it back to balance with the rest of the life on earth. Its not quantity that matters its quality.
Life forms do not of their own accord restrict their numbers; other species keep them in check. When these checks and balances are disturbed the species themselves pay a dear price. Homo sapiens need to develop breeding control, not incorporated into our genetics by evolutionary processes.
You don't need to go out and buy a new hybrid car. The car you have has had a lot of resources put into it, use it frugally and for as long as possible. Reconsider discarding a perfectly good piece of equipment just because something new is available. Don't buy new technology to push the technology, there are enough people around who have a true need and will buy to fulfil a need.
As population increases, population pressures change ethics, homosexuality and violence increases.
If you or someone in your family is buying and using anti-bacterial cleansing aids: Think. The ads claim they kill 99.9% of bacteria, the .1% are the resistant ones, now they will breed. You create new strains resistant to anti-bacterial agents, we did this in the hospital system, and got golden staff and similar resistant strains, now we are doing it in our homes. Bacteria are living things they eat and reproduce; they maintain a balance at their size level. Kill them off and next you can have a fungal invasion.
Think before you act.
Where do you get you info from pal cause there are a lot of falsehoods going around at the moment. 1) there is no scientist outside of the IPCC that will agree that Climate Change is an issue in the field of Climatology, Fact. 2) who has the right to put value on life, do you. 3) Inaliable rights is something that i think you need to refresh on because we all have them. 4) The emission Trading Scheme is just going to end up belly up because we have woken up to the scam and the ETS WILL NOT PASS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this