HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.
The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.
Here's an idea; how about people stop flying back and forth from London to New York? I can't tell you how many times I've made that trip. Oh, right, yes I can; NEVER.
John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.
"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.
It wouldn't be much of a help for the future of Western Civilization, but I don't think the greenies think to highly of all that stuff.
"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."
Houston, we have a problem. I mean, how do you have less than one child? I know, I know, I'm joking. Still it does sound kind of funny.
Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.
The world's population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries.
Oh yea, that's right; most of the developed countries already have fertility rates below population stabilization. EU average is 1.5. Sure, that's more than "less than one child", but it's getting close. Yes, more tricky is how to get all those muslims and brown folks to stop reproducing, since they are the ones with exploding populations.
Looking at the rankings of fertility rates, you don't see a "Western" country on the list until you hit 126, where you will find the United states a rate of 2.09. France is at 1.98, and Italy is at a paltry 1. 26.
Honestly, the most humorous aspect of this entire argument, is that reduced fertility rates means a total collapse of any institution or government based on a socialist model. You know, like welfare, social security, and nationalized health care. For those things, you need MORE children, not less. I honestly don't know how Canada is going to make it, with their paltry 1.61 fertility rate. While importing citizens from the Middle East may have seemed like a good idea, I don't think it's really going to pan out that great.