In the age of contraception, child birth has a taken on a moral angle that existed far less acutely in the past: the question around having children now represents a real decision to be made, and increasingly it seems that many environmentally conscious parents-to-be are further being pressured into accepting an anti-procreation stance, encouraged by thinkers who argue that further population growth in a carbon-led economy will do untold damage to the planet.
It’s a hotly contested issue; literally a matter of life and death, the environmental debate over population control is the clearest symbol of our own acknowledgement or denial of the benefits and detriments of our presence in the natural order, with advocators of population slow-down admitting in essence that the human race, multiplied, equals multiplied destruction.
The moral jury is still out on the subject, though. In the Guardian’s green living blog, Lucy Siegle has argued as follows:
To spawn or not to spawn? Naturally the planet has a view. Hitherto its mouthpiece has appeared to be the Optimum Population Trust (patron: David Attenborough)Proc. Its core message: that the projected 70-80 million additions to earth every year represent environmental catastrophe. Every day 10,000 new inhabitants will, according to the OPT, begin using life-sustaining resources and emit carbon when the planet just can’t take it. We are no longer able to live on the interest from the earth’s natural capital – we are eating into the actual capital. The OPT’s “Stop at Two” pledge encourages us to stop procreating after we’ve replaced ourselves. But eco warriors send mixed messages. For every Norwegian sex activist wanting to “Fuck For Forest” (a non-profit “erotic ecological organisation” which involves more than just treehugging), there’s a green campaigner angsting over oestrogen pollution from the pill and condoms killing coral reef.
Where lies the answer? And can pro-environmental rationale really validate potential population controls? The gravity of the issue draws heavy attention to the potential sacrifices one might have to make as an environmentalist, and also the absurd weight of the issue to which we must all throw ourselves – to the point of an unsolvable despair, for some – if as a populace we are to tackle and redress the damage so far done as a result of our carbon culture.
The ultimate problem, though is this: regardless of moral questions, is it ever going to be practical to ask people to stop having sex?
Let’s see.
