Could Too Many Children End Humankind?

What if it came to the point where a second child in every household tipped the scales irreparablytowards environmental apocalypse? After all, despite treaties, bans, conferences, and Nobel winning former Vice Presidents, environmental degradation continues to seriously hamperhumankind's future survival.

America, for example, consumes huge amounts of resources, arguably inefficiently. The ecological footprint of the US is twenty-four acres. If everyone on Earth lived like Americans, then it would take 5.5 planets to sustain our consumption of resources. China consumes far less than America, yet they are a major polluter. And although European countries pollute less and maintain smaller ecological footprints, they also pay poorer, less developed countries in a pollution barter. In other words, Europe pays some countries to pollute less so that Europeans can pollute more.

Let's return to the original question: What if a second child brought about extinction? There are some organizations who surprisingly favor the end of humankind, as they advocate voluntary human extinction through a halt on reproduction. Others look at the numbers, and suggest that two children per family wouldn't ever tip the balance. They suggest that the birthrate of developed nations, by and large the planet's greatest polluters, has actually dropped. Population increases there now come primarily from immigrants. As a result, most nations will eventually achieve anequilibrium, then pollute less and less as green technologies also come on line. This will stave off the end.

In the end, the question doesn't really allow a black-and-white analysis. It's more a matter of raising an altruistic and responsible child. After all, what if the second child became a champion of the environment, or developed a clean energy source?