In a recent magazine
article,[i]
writer Lisa Hymas brought up a subject that many of us environmentalists are
afraid to touch: choosing to remain childless. She values the individual
freedom she has had from PTA meetings, trips to the zoo, and many other aspects
of being a parent. Even more important, in view of the familiar statistics
about population growth and its horrific effects on the environment, she knows
she made a sound environmental choice.
As a liberal
environmentalist, I am sometimes torn about the population issue. An increase in population size results
from rises in birth rate and/or immigration (or, conversely, from falls in
death rate and/or emigration). Immigration, like family planning, is a
controversial topic. On the one hand, I would like to see America’s doors open
to the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” It is painful to learn about
young people who were brought to this country as young children, but cannot go
to college or have lives considered normal by United States citizens.
Understandably, they want to shed the “undocumented” label. On the other hand,
massive immigration is certainly a problem for the environment. There are very
apparent limits to space, water, and other resources. Those of us who were born
here can do a little bit to counter the effects of immigration by remaining childfree.
There is enormous societal pressure to have children, and it is hard to resist. When I was a young married woman, people I barely knew would ask me when we planned to have children. My reasons were none of their business, of course, but that didn’t stop them. After I had a hysterectomy at the age of 30, I could say sadly and honestly that I was unable to have children, but that didn’t stop some people from urging us to adopt! (Today, of course, we would be counseled to use methods that were unavailable at that time.)
Adoption is fine
for many couples, and is one small answer to both the population problem and to
involuntary childlessness. To be honest, though, I don’t care all that much
about children; I have never cooed at the sight of a baby or said that I “just
love children” in general. When kids start to become interesting, I can like or
dislike them, just as I would adults. My late husband felt the same way, and so
we never considered adoption.
My partner never
had children, either, for a different reason that also benefited the
environment. Unlike me, he greatly enjoys small children, and would have made a
fine father. However, having a genetic disease, he chose not to take a chance
on passing on those genes. As a result, he caused less pressure on the
environment and avoided damage to the gene pool.
Now that I am in
my late seventies, I sometimes wonder whether I should have had one child for purely
selfish reasons. When my own mother lived to be more than 100, I was able to do
much to make her last years comfortable. My own future may be bleaker than hers
was.
I admire Lisa for
her courage in writing this article, and hope she will not suffer too much
criticism from mommy bloggers and others who will try to make her feel selfish
or anti-children. She made a choice that was right for her, and good for the
planet.
