Did you know - we don't just have only children . . .

[Takver]

. . we're virtuous, eco-friendly people who are going to save the planet

Ah ah......I knew I was really virtuous, deep down Didn't realise we had the one child thing in common...

Hence why I have time to worry about dd's hairstyle and go to museums with her

David Attenborough said something v similar last year and was resoundingly labelled bonkers! I think the daily mail types immediately assumed what he was saying was forced sterilisation and homes made of wode!

When DH is being pressured about our one child family, and doesn't want to discuss it, he often says that we can't afford the carbon offsetting - seems like they can't think of anything to say after that

Yes I read this article - also very positive about reversing the social stereotyping of one child families.

Feel good article all round for us

Aha! I was hoping someone would post a link as I read it yesterday.

I was particularly interested in the estimates of carbon footprints. Our decision (to the extent that it was a decision) to have one child had nothing, really, to do with ecological considerations. But I do have to bite my tongue when people say "there is no environmental impact in my having 25 children because we use Ecover to wash the nappies", neatly sidestepping the real issues.

I dare you to post this on the Larger Families board or, better still, in AIBU ... go on, pleeeeaassse

I have 3 but 2 of them are recycled... am I let off?

Oh RebeccaRabbit that is very mischievous (sits back and waits to see if someone does )

RebeccaRabbit - I'm not that brave! Besides, I really don't want to pick a fight. People make the choices that they do and I see no point in haranguing them afterwards. I thought the point of the research quoted in the Guardian was to raise awareness for people who hadn't yet made the choice.

But, even so, I do wish that it was possible to discuss these issues on MN without them becoming so heated (as I have seen on other threads about family size). I don't believe that any government can or should try to dictate how many children a family can have (the example of China is not one I'd ever want to follow) but I do wish that when these issues get discussed it was on the basis of an evaluation of all the ramifications of family size. The reason I usually walk away from threads about family size is because of the (it seems to me) deliberate missing the point, where people suggest that the environmental impact of having 25 babies is completely offset by using washable nappies, without looking at the long-term implications 20, 30 or 50 years down the line.

Anyway, I thought this thread was supposed to be tongue in cheek, for which is a versatile new emoticon!

25 babies?

Err, that's meant to be an obviously invented example, because I'm generalising about the broad tenor of the threads I've seen rather than quoting any one contribution to any thread.

Now I'm

Don't fret StillCrazy, definitely understanding the tone of the thread. And remember, it's never too late to start on the path to eco friendliness - as Shockers said recycling is also an answer. A friend of mine who has 2 dcs told me this morning that neither are sleeping so has decided to suggest a swap for 2 dogs instead (whose carbon foot print is much smaller)

To attempt a slightly serious answer though - I think it's interesting that you cannot possibly have a discussion on family size and implications on the impact. Totally agree that this should and can never be an area of policy and I would fight for everyone's right to choose. However, it really is a very interesting point - not sure David Attenborough would be welcome on a Mumsnet live chat on that subject though

If you are not easily offended, there was a satirical piece on it on last week's Newswipe with Charlie Brooker - outrageous but funny (cannot possibly post link, would fear for own life!)

I think if you recycle your children - only or not - you'll have more than Mumsnet to worry about

For a start, our council is very particular about what goes in those orange bags.

Stillcrazy - my suggestion was tongue-in-cheek

takver

Yes, RebeccaRabbit, I realised that. I was just explaining at tedious length why, tempting as it was, I wouldn't accept the dare.

How dare anyone call David Attenborough 'bonkers'?

He's one of the few people priveliged enough to have seen most of this wonderful world. Its bleedingly obvious that there's too many of one species of animal on this earth (or that there will inevitably be too many if we carry on as we are, increased population growth is not infinitely sustainable in a finite world) but there's no ethical form of 'pest control' so the only possible option is for each individual to act responsibly. That doesn't have to mean exactly the same thing for each family, far from it. A one-child western family can still be much more damaging than a multi child family, depending on the amount that family consumes and contributes.

" ..... A one-child western family can still be much more damaging than a multi child family, depending on the amount that family consumes and contributes."

But is that actually true? The figures quoted in the Guardian seemed to be suggesting that the carbon footprint of having a child is so massive that even if the one-child family flies to the Amazon in its private jet and torches an acre of rainforest, that will still not have as much environmental impact as their having another child. Or were you comparing a one child family in the West with a family with more than one child in the developing world? There will be many families with more than one child in other countries with a smaller carbon footprint than ours, I know ).

Yes, a lot of people tell me, 'My children are not the problem; they are an asset to the world,' which, on one level, is obviously true, but when it comes to carbon footprint, there are (whispers) too many people.

And this is the perfect place for David Attenborough to come and discuss his theory.

Shockers- LO at recycled children, you adopted / fostered I assume?

Tis tricky isn't it. Parts of my family think we are weird because we won't fly long haul every year, only have one car and recycle carefully. Other parts think we are weird because we chose to have only one child.

Would love an Attenborough visit however, concerned that the rageometer on the MN servers may render them melted!

Adopted

I have 3 but dh and I considered sticking with ds1 for quite a while and although for us having more was something we were able to do and wanted to do, I think it's awful when people feel it necessary to comment to parents of one child families on why they have only one and aren't they having any more etc. My closest friend has one DD and finds it exhausting always feeling like she has to justify her decision.
Enjoying this thread - and will show it to friend.
lol at the recycled children