A British environmentalist group has declared that children are bad for the planet.
The paraphernalia that accompanies babies from the hospital ought to have been their first clue. It's a wonder babies aren't declared bio-hazards from the get-go.
You have disposable diapers for those messy eruptions on the bottom half and soft washcloths for volcanic explosions on the top half.
You have the blue bulb suction gizmo for secretions clogging the nasal passages, anti-bacterial creams for diaper rash, cotton buds for ear wax and no-tears shampoo for flakes on the scalp.
Once babies become mobile their haz-mat factor increases even more. They are carriers for dirt, germs, bacteria, slime, pet dander and assorted insects. They pocket assorted refuse like bird feathers, rocks, acorns, old candy wrappers and snake skins.
To top it off, they often smell. The kids, not the refuse. Sweat pollution.
The Optimum Population Trust says the greatest way to help the future of the planet is to have one less child.
It is true, children do consume the planet's resources. They use their share of electricity, water, fossil fuels - and, yes, a lot of them have developed the nasty habit of breathing air. Kids. What can you do?
The environmentalist group says that having two, instead of three children, (couples should produce no more than two) will make a much greater impact on the planet than switching off lights.
Someone may have switched off lights on the environmentalists.
Kids may consume, they may even generate dust storms and small whirlwinds, but they are also producers. And part of what they will produce is our future.
Fifty years ago, 16 workers paid into Social Security for every retiree who drew benefits. Today, there are three workers per beneficiary and over the next few decades that number will fall to two workers per beneficiary.
Fewer babies? In developed nations, we're already there. A fertility rate of 2.1 is considered a birth rate able to replace the current population. The British fertility rate is below replacement levels at 1.7 and the European Union average hovers around 1.5.
In the United States, our fertility rate has fallen below the replacement rate as well.
Philip Longman, a demographer that studies fertility rates has some interesting findings. He says that today, the average woman in the world bears half as many children as did her counterpart in 1972.
He also notes that progressive cities tend to have smaller families than conservative cities. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are only 19% more dogs than kids.
Who would have thought the dogs would one day outnumber the kids?
Longman also points out that people who attend church regularly are far more likely to have three or more children than people who seldom attend church.
Today's children, whether they come from large or small families, homes where the dogs outnumber the kids or the kids outnumber the dogs, will become the workers that fuel our economy and support a rapidly aging population.
My mother hung a cross stitch in her kitchen that succinctly articulates what so many of the demographers stop short of saying: "Be kind to your children, they choose your nursing home."
Children are not bad for the planet, they are the future of the planet.
