by thebeebs
12. March 2008 04:51
I recently got told by a friend, having children will seriously increase your carbon footprint.
The more children you have, the greater the strain you put on the earths resources. I researched the idea a little and one of the main ambassadors appears to be Chris Rapley of the Science Museum. Science chief: cut birthrate to save Earth
Here are 2 reasons Chris Rapley is talking nonsense:
- Having a child doesn’t necessarily increase the strain on global resources. Pol Pot the former leader of the Khmer rouge order 750,000 people to their death during his leadership of Cambodia. Therefore his parents actually managed to decrease substantially the strain on natural resources, particularly in Cambodia.
- If we consider that to be a genius your IQ has to be in the 99.994th percentile, then that means there are currently 36000 geniuses in the world. If there are 10 billion people we'd have 60000 geniuses. That means we could solve the problem of global warming through technical advances twice as fast.
Therefore I’d suggest the more people there are on the planet the better the chances we have of solving Global Warming. The theory that C02 will increase in 50 years is floored in the same way the theory in the 1950s that the smog in London would be twice as bad in 50 years; because it assumes all of the variables are going to remain the same.
What do you think? Are humans bad for the environment?