Comments on: The GINK Manifesto: Childless, Proud and Loud

By: Karin Kloosterman

Karin Kloosterman — Mon, 16 May 2011 09:30:05 +0000

In reply to Anonymous. Bob Dylan's "Master of War" comes to mind when I hear people's deliberate reasoning for not wanting to have children. I think the fear is something deeper than the environment sacrifice argument. I am processing it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 May 2011 06:40:16 +0000

As a male “GINK” who made the conscious decision to “snip it” at age 33, I think that men are a very important piece of the GINK puzzle. We have the ability to easily undergo a safe and simple $600 out-patient procedure that guarantees our commitment and the commitment of our partner to green inclined, no kids.

There are many reasons for the decision that my wife and I made, but one of the reasons is certainly that we see having a child as an action that at least doubles ones carbon footprint. In a world in which the actions of 7 billion humans have become a damaging influence on the balance of natural ecosystems and where population is projected to double again in 100 years without our help, it seems almost selfish to give into the instinct.

By: Tinamarie Bernard

Tinamarie Bernard — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 05:13:33 +0000

Bert – I like your comment too. The thing is, though – most of the world’s children are treated as ‘statistics’ by those intrusted to take care of them. The numbers living in poverty, or worse, sold into servitude around the globe are mind boggling. True – the distribution problem is a major contributor to the lack of adaquate resources.

But so is the callousness with which many children are regarded by governments, individuals and communities. If everyone valued our most precious heritage like you do, the decision by those to remain childless – for whatever reason, up to and including because the planet is in distress – would be a moot point.

Why shame the childless? We should be shaming those who fail miserably at rearing their own.

By: Karin Kloosterman

Karin Kloosterman — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 04:17:28 +0000

In reply to Bert Williams. Bert – I "Like" your comment.

By: Bert Williams

Bert Williams — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:02:30 +0000

I found this link after my daughter “liked” it and recommended it on Facebook. This was my personal reply to her:
“OK, I read it, and I did think about it. And I came up with a few other things to think about. First, this article reduces children to a set of statistics. Having more=bad. Having none=good. While no one should expect that another person should be saddled with the responsibility of making them happy (ie: have children, be happy), children are not numbers. They are people- NEW people with new ideas, different personalities, and endless opportunities to bring answers of their own to the problems of the planet. If someone doesn’t want to have kids, so be it. But don’t turn it into a righteous crusade “to save the planet” in order to justify one’s own personal decision. The issues with “overcrowding” and the inability to feed/clothe them really has nothing to do with the planet’s ability to produce enough, because it can. It has more to do with the distribution of that provision though a human supply system that is greedy and corrupt. Two final thoughts: 1). an individual has only the time they are alloted on this earth to make a difference. Once they’re dead, their influence ends. Through their children and the heritage they teach them, their influence continues long after they are gone. 2). If I had adopted this belief early in my life, I never would have had the privilege of knowing you.”

By: Tinamarie Bernard

Tinamarie Bernard — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:46:13 +0000

Marcus Buckingham has written extensively about his research into women and happiness. While children bring meaning and joy, he has said, they do not guarantee happiness. Many are disinclined to admit to these feelings, if they don’t fall in the category of women who feel joy from rearing their children. Perhaps it’s not selfishness at all, but an extreme act of awareness to know, and declare, that having the reproductive ability doesn’t mean a person has the necessary means and emotional resources to be a parent/mother.

In this case, it’s not a hip alternative, but selflessness practiced consciously. To say, I don’t have it within me to do what it takes to raise children, and as an environmentalist, I know the impact of unfettered population growth on the planet – therefore, I opt to be a noble citizen of the planet, and not a parent – is an alternative we should acknowledge as reasonable and justified.

By the way – I have two babies of my own There’s been many moments of joy, many moments of oy, and everything in between.

By: Oshra Attia

Oshra Attia — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 11:11:45 +0000

The list of “plusses” of not having children does not convince me at all. I wouldn’t trade any number of Saturday nights on the town or uninterrupted conversations for the joy my children have brought me. While I respect any woman’s decision to remain childless, the eco-justification strikes me as a hip alternative to having to just admit that one is selfish and wants to remain a child themselves.

By: Tinamarie

Tinamarie — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 04:46:25 +0000

Ashley – absolutely agreed about food production (mentioned in this and other Greenprophet.com articles!). The real message of this is that having, or not having children, must be a CONSCIOUS decision. Stefanie is quite clear that she intends to be a mother, by adopting. I’m not sure I agree that if one person doesn’t have a child, another will take their place. Simply put, there’s a limit to how many children one woman can have! If we were to see a collective mindset change about bringing children into this world, paricularly in countries with extraordinarily high birth rates (like in the Middle East!) – then we could curtail the population youthquake.
Karin – I’ve heard that before! 🙂 There’s just no way a parent can guarantee the life path of their children. No one should sacrifice his or her body or reproductive rights for the environment – I agree. I read the Gink Manifesto as a call to consciousness about the number of children we bring into this world, and a umbrella of ‘protection’ for those women/couples, who regardless of environmental concerns, don’t plan on having kids anyway.
I guess my point is this – if environmentalists don’t consider the consequences of their actions vis a vis the planet’s population explosion…who will?

By: Karin Kloosterman

Karin Kloosterman — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 04:33:00 +0000

In reply to Maurice. There is an aspect of continuing one's own genes obviously, but the debate on how much is genetic and how much is environment is still very much in debate.

By: Karin Kloosterman

Karin Kloosterman — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 04:26:49 +0000

In reply to Ashley. I think the green people of the world need to make beautiful, earth-loving babies so after our work is done, they can continue our legacy. I don't think any woman should sacrifice her body and reproductive right for the environment.