Family Size and the Ecological Footprint - Page 2

[Elphaba]

okay, i want some credit for breastfeeding and not having a period for almost 2 years and then using the Keeper and not tampons! :LOL and we don't use paper towels or napkins or disposable diapers and wipes.
we scored a 16, which is high compared to the rest of you. oh the shame. i thought we were making a smart move by only having one vehicle and taking turns with it, but i guess that doesn't matter. now, if i could figure out a way to get my dog to haul me around..........
this gave me new resolve to fix up our eating habits. it's hard when your dh wants to eat chips and cookies and fast food for every meal.
our house is defintiely too big for us. the next time we buy a home it is going to be a lot smaller.

[phathui5]

Are there any other quizzes like this out there? I want to try a more comprehensive one.

[aussiemum]

Are you guys serious when you say the average number is 24 in your area????? As in 24 biologically productive hectares per person? I'm an ex-pat American, and I have to say, even I am shocked. What the h*ll do you have to do in a year to require 24 hectares to sustain yourself? Thank goodness I'm living in the land down under now, where the average footprint is 7.6. I scored a 5.9, which confirms my suspicions that I've been slacking off on the greenie front lately- off to the community garden for me now, I think!

[Elphaba]

i think america in general gets a 24. big houses, big vehicles with shitty gas mileage that we drive to go half a block, processed foods, meat at every meal, you get the picture.

[aussiemum]

Hey, I think I've been slagging you guys off too much; that's actually 24 ACRES in the US, which is a big difference to 24 HECTARES- There are about 2.5 acres to each hectare. (But I could make a cheeky comment about the Americans refusing to get with the metric program )

And I re-did the quiz as I would have lived in my uni days in Washington state- still needed 2.5 planets to sustain everybody at that lifestyle, which is astonishing considering my consumption patterns were so much more environmentally friendly back then.

[MelKnee]

Ok, I just redid the test using data from my living-high-of-the-hog days. When it was just me and my dh, two incomes, two commutes, big house, a lot of waste. I got only a 15.9. I can't imagine how much someone would have to consume to get a 24.

[DebraBaker]

Hmmm, I got a 12 which sounds good until I noticed it would take 2.5 planets for everyone else to live by my high standard!!

db

[lunar forest]

The housing issue wouldn't be such a factor if everybody didn't insist on having their own house with garage, white picket fence, and ten acres of land around them.

A good point. I really don't understand why nearly no one questions the "need" for this kind of lifestyle! We live with family right now, trying to save money, etc., so that we can buy land and hopefully homestead so that we will be living off of the land we own (a small number of acres) as opposed to how we live now, and the choices we have for living. I don't feel bad about wanting a large family, especially if we can completely live off of our own land.
This is an interesting dissucion, it's given me lots of things to think about.

[Piglet68]

I realize reading that quote from me that my "10 acres of land" was an exaggeration that led to a good point (made by lunar forest), but I didn't want to come across as criticizing anyone who prefers the "country life". I can definitely see the appeal in that, and if you use your 10 acres to sustain yourself, then that's way cool too.

I guess it's more of a suburb thing that I was trying to refer to. With everybody having their own oversized house with an oversized lawn that requires fertilizers, mowers, and lots of water to maintain, etc. Those type of develpments are really a big drain on resources, IMO.

[irishprincess71]

Warning - getting on my soapbox

I completely agree that, especially in America, our lifestyle does use and misuse too many resources. However, there are a few key issues brought up here that I take particular unction with...

First and foremost - except those who desire to live in New York City no one aspires to live and raise their children in apartments surrounded by cement. Apartments are a stepping stone to a suburb life. And what is wrong with that?

Right now I live in a detached condo. 1511 sq. ft. My backyard is 600 sq ft. My front yard 2 ft X 20 ft. It fronts the street. In my backyard I have a patio and dirt. In the dirt I have 3 zucchini plants, 3 tomato plants, a tangerine tree, and a nectarine tree. Unfortunately, I can not take my baby out into the yard with me while I garden. He will never be able to be let loose to play in the back or front yard without my constant supervision until he is almost 10. I will have to walk him and his siblings to the park for them to be able to play outside. What is wrong with me wanting a house and yard that enables my children to play outside as preschoolers and elementary schoolers without me having to stand over them. To have grass, a swing, and maybe a mini pool?

The idea seems to be that it is okay to have a ton of children but not okay to want them to have certain lifestyles. If everyone on this planet limited themselves to only 2 children everyone could have a suburb lifestyle without running out of resources. On the other hand if everyone had 10 kids on a self sufficent 10 acre farm we would run out of resources only a few generations.

I also feel very strongly that if you want to raise ecologically responsible children you should try adoption for anything more than 2. Because regardless of how much you recycle, etc. you and your children will still be using non-replenishable resources, including and especially fresh water supplies. What better way to teach your children about respecting the earth than to love someone else and not add to already over-populated planet. There are millions of children out there who need homes and would love to help "save the environment."

Sorry if I offended anyone but I feel very strongly, especially about the second issue. My dream would be to adopt 8 children from China, Russia, Africa, and South America (plus my 2 bio boys) and we would all live in a 4000 sq.ft. house with a yard big enough to grow enough food to help feed us all year.

[eilonwy]

What a fun quiz! For our current situation, i scored a 7. Interestingly, I did it for when we were living with my mother and scored a 13. I think this is mostly because they have a house and we had a *lot* more trash. Now we're using cloth diapers & we can recycle, so we do. I've read more than once on this thread that the test doesn't take cloth diapers or breastfeeding into account, but I think it does in terms of waste production. Dh & I have *much* less trash than our nieghbors; we average one bag every 2 weeks.

I'm also working very hard to limit processed foods, partly for health reasons and partly to cut down on trash even more. And I've recently become a vegetarian, eating (but not living) as a vegan. (I'm allergic to milk and eggs, but I will not give up honey or my skechers. *hehe*). I think I could get that footprint smaller if I didn't drive in to see Eli's grandparents so often, but short of that I'm not sure what else I can do.

[lunar forest]

With everybody having their own oversized house with an oversized lawn that requires fertilizers, mowers, and lots of water to maintain, etc. Those type of develpments are really a big drain on resources, IMO.

I completely agree, piglet! I think, maybe some people on this thread are missing this point.

Besides, I believe that in the US and Canada and other developed countries, we are fairly close to achieving zero population growth, so I don't think a few people wanting to have big families is such an issue.

I think that Piglet made a very good point here. Of course it would be wonderful if all the children in need of a home could have one, but it isn't very practical for everyone to adopt, and I take exception the statement that the only way to be ecologically responsable is to adopt. I understand that you feel very strongly about this, irishprincess, but I think this idea is a bit extreme, and unrealistic. Especially considering the cost, availability, and possibility for most people to even be considered for adoptees. I have freinds and relitives whom have been involved in the adoption process for years. It's not the romance that one might think.
Most people will probably never be able to afford to adopt any children, so should they than be limited to only 2 children? Perhaps I have just misunderstood what you ment?

My feeling is that you can, and should raise your children to be ecologically responsible, regardless of the number of children you have.

btw, it only takes 3 acres for a family to be self suficiant...

[Zhlake]

Well as embarrassed as I am to post this I will. I scored a 24. Someone wanted to know how you could possibly get this--well I eat meat or dairy at almost every meal, I live in a really big house with only 3 of us there, we drive an SUV, we eat a lot of processed foods, and we have running water and electricity! I wouldn't say that we are more wasteful than your average mainstream family, but we are definetly not enviornmentalists!

[Lovebugsmommy]

2.8 YEAH!

[irishprincess71]

Lunar Forest:

I agree to a point. Adoption is not always feasible for everyone. If you want an American baby the wait can be years, if you want out of the country the expense can be tremendous, and if you do it through foster care it can be heartbreaking.

And I didn't mean to imply that you are not being ecologically responsible if you don't. Although I don't believe that large families are ecologically responsible. In most cases of adoption where there is a will there is a way. But most people that I know and that you would even ask would be honest enough to admit that adoption is only a last resort measure. That they want "their own." Which is why fertility clinics make such big money. Adoption rarely enters into the vocabulary of families and I dearly wish that would change.

The argument however, that people can't afford adoption is not a viable one. If you are willing to do foster care most states will end up paying for things like medical expenses and college educations for adopted foster children. You just have to be willing to open your heart up to sometimes damaged children.

However, I trust that you didn't mean to imply that I was "missing the point" on this thread. I completely understand that as Americans we have probably one of the highest levels of waste in the world. What I don't agree with is that it comes almost completely from the size house we live in which seems to be what was implied not only from Piglet but also from the test itself.

Maybe I am misinterpreting the idea of "oversize". I live in S.C. very few people have what you would call "oversize" lawns and houses. But I know that I don't agree with the idea that you have to live either in an apartment or a 10-acre "self sufficent" farm to be within the code of environmentally friendly and ecologically responsible.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, I believe that in the US and Canada and other developed countries, we are fairly close to achieving zero population growth, so I don't think a few people wanting to have big families is such an issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But only if they live in apartments not the suburbs, right?

[Piglet68]

I couldn't disagree more that "no one" wants to raise their children in an apartment...there are many, many wonderful urban neighbourhoods in cities and towns across the US and Canada. It just requires dismissing preconceptions (living in a "concrete jungle") and a shift in attitude.

I do not want a house. To me they are one big ol' PITA and just not the way I wish to live. We just bought our dream home, and it's on the 15th floor of a high rise, right in the city. The neighbourhood is a thriving area, and we are right across the street from a fabulous waterfront market full of farmer's produce and fresh seafood. There's a huge arts community nearby, many beaches, waterfront seawall walks, children's water parks...heck there are parks in every direction. Our kids will not be "surrounded by concrete". Sure I won't be able to leave them unattended in the back yard, but having one floor sure comes in handy when you're trying to watch the kids and do laundry and houseclean! AND there's a fabulous community garden just three blocks away where we'll have a plot to grow our own veggies and let the kids play in the dirt.

Anyways, my point was that there are many factors involved in the footprint. Family size is one, your home is another. I don't see alot of people growing up wanting large families, but I do see alot of people still buying into the "American dream" of owning a house in the 'burbs, so IMO that is the bigger concern. But certainly one can have that and "make up for it" in many other ways.

[barbara]

I scored a 7 and we have a large family! The average for my area is 24. I guess some things are relative. ( ha! ha! a little joke there - family - relative )

I'm not going to enter this family size debate, because I don't want to waste the energy, but I sure would like to see the same respect and tolerance given to those that choose a large family as is given to those that choose other options and lifestyles!

I do think that by living where we can grow some of our own produce and nuture animals is ecological sound. Also we have two families living in our house, which IMO is also a more responsible way to live, even though it is culturally frowned upon in North America.

Ah well, live simply so that others may simply live.

peace and love,
~b

[DebraBaker]

I'll enter into the large family debate.

We live in the U.S. The population in the US and in other developed nations is at or below ZPG by birthrate (the population increases by immigration) I don't think limiting family size is the issue at hand in the US but rather the way people consume resources.

I have eight children. I am unusual here. Most people have one or two children....not because they care about the environment but because they *choose* to have only one or two children. Oftentimes they choose to have only one or two because "they can't handle any more" or for selfish reasons....but that's their choice (and I'm glad they have a choice)

The vast majority of people around her don't give a rat's behind about the effect they're having upon the environment.

Most people (with one or two children, mind you, live in 3,000 square foot houses with a bathroom for each person. Keep the AC at 68 degrees. Eat tons of meat (and wonder why they're fat) and drive large SUV's (do not need to get through in the snow and ice, either.) Take exotic vacations with themselves and another with their children. Kids are wasteful because they have the notion that things are always there (like magic or something.)

This is typical of the four person family in this area.

In large families, however, children learn to cooperate, to share, to distribute resources fairly because there generally isn't that sense that resources are unlimited because a large family is supporting many more people on a limited income (we're comfortible but still it's being divided in more directions) I think I scored well because we generate much less trash per person, live in a 2,500 square foot house that is shared with seven people. I almost always have *someone* in the van with me.

And, no, so far my children are growing up and not having large families of their own. My oldest wants one or three children (doesn't want two because it's "too typical and boring". DD #2 will likely have one or two (she's studying to become a doctor so won't have the time to have a large family) #3 doesn't think she will have any (she's the Marine) and the rest are too young to have formed opinions.

One reason my older children don't want a lot of children is because they *know* it takes a lot of work and commitment.

I think because our own cultures don't have the problem of population growth (population growth seems to decline with education and economic opportunities) we need to focus on encouraging people to conserve resources. Because so few people want to have large families we can enjoy the special qualities of those rare large families without worrying about overburdening the planet.

Debra Baker

[Super Pickle]

QUOTE:
"Because so few people want to have large families we can enjoy the special qualities of those rare large families without worrying about overburdening the planet."


Excellent point Debra. I appreciate your entire post. Hats off to parents of large families!!!!!! They have something very valuable and precious to offer our culture.


:bf :binky

[spinach]

Because so few people want to have large families we can enjoy the special qualities of those rare large families without worrying about overburdening the planet.

I appreciate the advantages of a big family, as pointed out by DebraBaker, but it's pretty hard for me to swallow the "w/out worrying about overburdening the plant" part. That logic applied in other areas would be scary - "everyone else recycles so what difference does it make if I don't?" "Most people drive relatively fuel-efficient cars so my SUV on the road doesn't hurt the environment that much." Etc, etc. Like I said, I can see the wonderful benefits of a large family but I think everyone needs to acknowledge their impact (direct and indirect) on the planet.

Fatalism warning... My dh listened to a spot on environmentalism/global warming on NPR and told me about it. The host asked the expert (sorry, I don't know who it was): how concerned should we be about destroying our plant? The expert's opinion was that we should be more concerned about the possibility of a self-regulating earth. It's possible that the earth has a similar ability to fight "disease" as the human body. His opinion was that it's arrogant for humans to think we can destroy the earth and that it's more likely the earth would destroy us, making the climate inhospitable to us. I don't know how much credence this opinion has among environmentalists but it's a very interesting thought.