Could We Save the Earth by Reproducing Less?

For years we've known that we're killing the planet. There have been increases in pollution, global warming, using non-renewable resources, and even exponential population growth. But what many people don't realize is that it's population growth that is killing the planet the most. After all, one person using their car practically doesn't affect the environment. But we all know what happens in larger cities with more people when it comes to pollution and environmental problems. Even the most greenest of American families are generally hurting the earth, just not at the rate of others. So could we really save the earth by limiting our population? Would it be right for governments to limit how many children a couple can have for the sake of saving the planet?

Right now the current population in the world is roughly 6.6 billion. Before the 20th century, this number seemed to be hundreds or even thousands of years off. In fact, the world population didn't even hit 1 billion until around 1850. But now 6.6 billion people stand on the earth only about 150 years later. Now scientists believe that this number could reach from anywhere between 8 and 14 billion within the next 150 years or so. Not surprisingly, this could hurt the planet more than ever and cut its sustainablity even shorter.

Many environmentalists believe that one way that we could save the planet, or allow the human race to live off its resources for longer, is by limiting our population. It's true that governments have been approached with the idea of limiting each family two one or two children. Undoubtably this would slow the population growth. One child would most likely be for every two people, meaning that the population growth could eventually decline if this were enforced across the world. Two children would keep the population growth steady. But the reason why this logical tactic would probably never work or be "ethical" is because people feel it is their right to reproduce and have as many children as they like. The problem is that their future ancestors could even see more problems sooner.

So now the question at hand is what is more ethical: Limiting your family to having only one or maybe two children or protecting the earth for your future ancestors, your children's children?

Tons of people don't believe that there is anything wrong with the earth or the resources provided by it. One way that you can see your affect on the earth is by using a neat tool developed by EarthDay.org. The tool is a quiz that determines your "ecological footprint," or how much earth is needed to sustain you. At the end of the quiz is also a graphic that will tell you how many earths would be needed if everyone lived like you. What's scary is that the average world ecological footprint is 21, meaning that people are currently living in a way that would require nearly 5 earths to sustain them. The way that this ties into population is that if there will less people, less resources or earth would be needed to sustain them. This would also allow the earth to give off more resources for longer if there were less people that needed them.

Although the idea of reproducing less probably won't catch on, many environmentalists suggest living "greener" and only using what you need. For more information about our affect on the earth, visit EarthDay.org.