By woodjr on Jan 11, 2007
I just learned a new word: ecosexual. Linda's latest post on the Conversations Squared blog introduced me to the term, and a quick Google search (to see if she had coined it on the spot) led me to some interesting follow-up material. Most interesting of that bunch was a "Beware the Ecosexual" article, which talks about how any true ecosexual would "also belong to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, a group of people dedicated to phasing out the human race in the interest of the health of the Earth."
Kind of funny. But on a more serious and personal note, I have had thoughts somewhat along these lines cross my mind. To me, the realistic threshold number for children isn't zero. It's two. If you and your mate together produce two offspring in your lifetime, you'll have a neutral long-term impact on the world's population. Have less and you'll have a reducing impact. Have more and you'll have an increasing impact.
Now please don't think that I'm judging anyone who has or plans to have three or more children. I certainly realize that human lives are measured in terms far beyond carbon footprints and landfill growth. It's just one factor that we might each want to consider in a very important decision. No matter how good you are about carpooling or turning off the lights, it's bound to pale in comparison to the lifetime environmental impact of having one more or less person on earth (especially with the footprint of our lifestyles in developed countries such as America).