….I dont' care how I leave the earth for future generations…

[funkietoo]

That’s what a co-worker said to me today:

‘I don’t have children, so I don’t care how I leave the earth for future generations’. Surprised me that this individual actually meant what she said.

I don’t have children either and am very concerned about the earth and future generations. How about you WSBers? thoughts?

Share This

[wakeflood]

I just hope that she and others who care for none but themselves don’t bother to vote so the rest of us can mitigate the damage they do just a little bit easier.

Share This

[Ms. Sparkles]

I guess your co-worker doesn’t believe in re-incarnation, isn’t worried the decline with pick up velocity and leave the earth in bad shape while they’re still on it as a frail senior citizen, or know of any person in the younger generation whose future they care about.

Which begs the question of whom your co-worker believes will be caring for them in their “golden years.”

It’s an honest sentiment, and I respect that even if I believe it’s tragicly short sighted.

Share This

[singularname]

I do actually understand the sentiment of your co-worker. This came up for me a couple of decades ago when I had a WAPIRG (I think that was the organization) solicitor trying to shame me into giving him 50, 20, 10, 5, and then finally 1 dollar as some sort of dare that if I wouldn’t give him a buck then I didn’t care about Earth’s future. (It was actually funnier than that: My husband was in the front yard planting and told the solicitor he was just the gardener, when I happened to come out the front door.) He was perhaps the most hostile person I ever had to deal with, and that sorta cemented it for me. Humans want to “save the environment,” I believe, because of an arrogance that they are some “special,” chosen species. [Cut through 10 thousand words here.] What humans would consider destruction is only destruction to humans and many or most species we share the planet with. When Earth returns to a toxic, primordial soup of black, gray, and brown–or maybe psychedelic?–whatever is able to live in that muck will be just as satisfied as humans are now, thus it’s “beautiful” to them. As to my own “golden years,” if I die a painful, lonely, unfair, whatever death, that would suck–but I’m certainly no more special than the billions who have died painfully, lonely, unfairly, or whateverly before me.

Share This

[EdSane]

I only half care about the environment. Mostly, because if the models are correct we’re all screwed. No point worrying about it.

Share This

[JimmyG]

I second what singularname wrote.

Also I don’t believe in reincarnation, I’m child-free by choice, I vote, and recycle.

That said, I don’t stress over the future of the planet or mankind, we’re merely blips on the continuum of this one particular planet no more special than any other life form to have called this place home for a bit.

I don’t sweat getting older and dying alone or in pain. Instead I choose to enjoy each day as if it could be my last one.

Share This

[kgdlg]

I do find it funny when my rabidly anti kid friends hate on children. I want to say “who do you think is going to wipe your a@& in the nursing home some day?” Seriously, kids are what hold your life together in so many ways, even if you haven’t had them. Bad education system = higher crime. Low birth rate = no one to take the jobs we desperately need to fill for baby boomers. It is simple math.

Share This

[JoB]

you may not care how you leave the earth to future generations…

but chance are you will live long enough to see the damage we have done with your own eyes…

i have.

Share This

[Smitty]

Ya know, if our ancestors weren’t so selfish many thousands of years ago we would still be skiing down Vashon Glacier. Talk about convenient.

Share This

[HunterG]

I have a coworker who says the same thing. He also has chosen not to have kids. Although its rather uneasy for me (childless by choice as well) to hear, the folks not having children are helping the environment much more than anyone who has chosen to have a child or children ever will be able to.

It isn’t for lack of caring. There are 7 billion people on this planet, and having children directly impacts the environment and the carbon footprint you have made. More people, more resources needed, and a lifetime of waste created by that person, ie your child.

The statement and its sentiment still sucks, but think of it this way….in a weird way your coworker is helping the planet in two ways. Of course the obvious ecological benefits of not having kids and two, more importantly they aren’t going to have any chances of passing down ignorant ways of thinking to any future generations!

:)

Share This

[amalia]

Hunter: so true. People who try to tell me that my life lacks meaning because I chose not to have kids, well… sorry their lives were meaningless before kids: they should have tried harder and done more.

that said, this is the most depressing thread I’ve ever seen. I won’t be here to see the continued demise of the environment (well, not after about 60 more years), but it pains me and I do a lot to try to slow it. So sad that others are so self-centered not to care. Enjoy your selfish lives, keep on justifying your greedy behavior, and good luck living with yourselves.

Share This

[The Velvet Bulldog]

Even in just this teensy-weensy microcosm of environmental discussion, look at how many different opinions and ideas there are. No wonder we have such trouble figuring out what to do about the future of our flora, fauna and humans. (And water, and food, and etc…)

Because of my interest in the environment and conservation, I’ve done a lot of studying in the past few years to learn about native habitat restoration, energy efficiency, sustainability, and awareness of wasteful/toxic habits.

I too am childless by choice (mainly because I would be a TERRIBLE PARENT. What do they mean Duct Tape isn’t an appropriate teaching tool??) but what matters most isn’t whether or not one has a child, but how many resources that child will use in its lifetime.

You know us Americans? We use a helluva lot of resources. Even if all us childless-by-choice folks were to run out and have TWINS (god forbid) if those kids were taught to use less, throw away less, and contribute more positive stuff to the environment, that would be better than resource-heavy users.

Even though I don’t have my own kids, my good friends do. Those kids are my “honorary” nieces and nephews and I am trying to be very aware of my choices to try to make things easier for them. I’m also trying to share the education about conservation, the environment, recycling, yadda yadda yadda so they can also make choices that positively affect their environment and their peers.

I like to think some of it is sinking in, though so far, their least favorite lesson is: “Don’t kill the spiders!”

Share This

[hammerhead]

Hunter G and Velvet Bulldog: spot on.

I never wanted children. I was not here have children.

I do hope that in the future the right to die issue will be more accepted.

I do my best at what I can for the local community but I also believe most do.

NO I don’t kill spiders. lol

Share This

[HunterG]

Velvet, you make great points. And amalia, yes this is one of the most depressing threads ever. Our fate on this rock is up to us and we humans are like ants. It’s a concrete fact that this planet cannot support life on this planet at the rate we (humans) are multiplying. In the past plagues and diseases would serve as a fail safe to aide overpopulation. In the age of technology and super antibiotics, plagues are a non threat. So we just grow in numbers…exponential growth is killing this planet.

I have a nephew, and I hope to be able to be a part of his education and teaching him how his every move impacts everything. His parents are both intelligent Eco minded people too, so he has great promise to be a conscientious person with greater good in mind.

And you are totally correct, this is an itty bitty piece of a huge puzzle and the answer is not for everyone to stop having babies. Do I think people should stop at two? Yeah, I do (accentuating circumstances of course aside).

It’s up to us to make up for those who are short minded. In a way, we are too late, our grandparents and great grandparents should have been doing what we are years ago. But hey, in the age of invention and growth who thinks about preservation?

I hate feeling like I came to this planet to watch the final act, but at this point, I feel as though it is more true than ever. Unless there is some sort of grid failure, massive EMP, complete shift of human perspective, or alien invasion we’re doomed.

I like to be an optimist, but, I also have to be realistic.

Wow, what a complete bummer I can be. Sorry guys.

Share This

[singularname]

Y’all might want to check out Karl Jacoby’s book Crimes Against Nature. I learned a lot here. I had no idea that conservation/environmentalism efforts similar to how we know them today went as far back (at least) as the 1890s. When doing research in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, I came across several articles in the late nineteenth century about beaver conservation (mostly), which was completely news to me. I had to get back to my main topic, but I want to go back to the archives and read more about it, and add to that what was understood and acted upon in the day re. levees (my assumption was “not much,” but now I wonder if any efforts made just weren’t understood enough or were a compromise).

Share This

[JoB]

singularname..

i find it heartening to know that there have always been voices for conservation.

without them, we wouldn’t have a single national park.

Share This

[kayo]

Well it is an uphill battle given people with the attitude expressed by your coworker, but as a parent of small children, I am trying very hard to teach them to respect this planet and take care of it. We need future stewards of the planet to try and reverse this damage. We can either throw up our hands and say it is hopeless and there is nothing we can do or we can try and make things better. Maybe I am a naive optimist, but some of my proudest moments these days are seeing my kids munch veggies right out of our home garden or seeing my young daughter pick up a piece of garbage at a park someone carelessly disgarded and put it in the garbage. Many of us are teaching our kids to care about this planet. I choose to be optimistic because I know so many of us who are trying to teach the next generation to do the right thing.

Share This

[JoB]

kayo

i too am optimistic that there will continue to be people who speak out against devaluing nature..

i am not quite so optimistic that those voices will be heard :(

which is why teaching your children these life skills may be so important

Share This

[funkietoo]

Lots of interesting comments and perspectives.

As much as I adore children, I chose not to have children because of the environmental impact; I could adopt or permanently foster children, (when older); I could spoil my nieces ‘n’ nephews; and support children that are already here on earth. Plus, I would not have been a good parent in my 20’s and early 30’s.

We humans are the number one environmental impact issue. Our activity causes more damage than any other species, so IMHO it is our responsibility to find ways to lessen our impact and to improve the condition of the environment. To do so will most likely mean we need to reduce our consumption of everything; slowly reduce our population; and reduce waste.

We live in such a ‘replaceable’ and ‘more is better’ environment. It’s cheaper to purchase a new ‘whatever’ than to repair it; big hurkin’ houses are better than small ones; etc. If we all reduce what we think we ‘need’ and ‘want’, plus think about using less toxic household, personal, garden products, etc., we can have a cumulative, positive effect. At the same time, we need some HUGE changes to really try to stop our destruction of the environment and I wonder if we have the stomach for it. Plus, I don’t know that we can get to a zero footprint. (however, I remember taking an Environmental Studies class at the UW that scientifically showed we don’t have to get to ‘zero’; that there is actually a ‘breakeven point’ where the environment can absorb a certain amount of ‘whatever/fill in blank’. The issue at hand is that we may be/are past the breakeven point).

As one person stated, we are but a ‘blip’ in the history of life on the planet. If we destroy it, other life (hopefully) will survive and thrive. But in the meantime, how many species of life will we destroy besides our own? And do we have the right to destroy other life in pursuit of our own happiness?

Share This

[TKDguy]

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”

Greek proverb

Share This

[HMC Rich]

Ahem. I am miffed, and somewhat appalled, by some of the statements on this thread. You have your opinion which I am glad you have the right to state. Everyone has their own reasons for choosing to or not to, but I certainly don’t agree with some of the reasoning.

But, whoever said the statement originally is selfish. Now my next statement will be appalling. Because if we let anarchy rule, they may have died from poisoned water, starvation, or murdered because if they didn’t care, why should anyone else.

Share This

[JoB]

this popped up on facebook this morning.

young people in my family fight fires so i was already aware of the increasing intensity and frequency of fires…but most people aren’t.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/31/2312591/climate-change-wildfires/

if you were thinking only future generations would pay the price, you were mistaken

Share This

[Author]

Posts