Zoe Williams' headline makes it pretty clear which side she's going to fall down on. "To Breed or Not To Breed?" she asks. Reminds me of a bumper sticker on a car in my neighborhood: "Thank you for not breeding." (Grrr.) Her verdict: David Attenborough, who recently said we should severely limit population because of the effects on "ecology, atmospheric pollution and in terms of the space and food production," is right. She decides that "we can all understand the issues at stake perfectly well - none of it is terrifically complicated - but we cannot apply them on a personal level," and puts her own decision about how many children to have in these terms: "I only have two hands. And I want to watch telly."

Her dichotomy is rather simple; should we worry about the environment or servicing welfare when we decide whether to limit population growth?; but the arguments presented by her commenters I found far more interesting. One commenter presented the question of whether we should, instead, consider the "right to drive" as a more sensible place to limit carbon emissions. Another argues that wealth distribution, and our wasteful culture, should be addressed before population limits. A third called the human race a "Ponzi scheme." But my favorite was this: "People keep having sexual intercourse, often without a discussion about birth control because they're in the moment, having fun for once. This is the most obvious aspect of human nature which renders the green cause utterly utopian." Nothing gets people frothy with debate like population control. Check out Umbra's take, which puts the question in terms of women's rights (and the multitude of comments); Karen's perspective is one of privacy. Babble takes yet a different angle.

In my experience, the families who have chosen to limit their progeny for environmental reasons are very well-educated, upper-middle class, typically professional and urban. I've also observed families who seem to live the most "sustainable" lives, without cars, greatly reducing consumption, growing their own food, collecting rainwater and installing solar panels, who tend to have three or more children. It's a complex paradox that doesn't fit into the public debate at all; two utopian communities making decisions in two entirely different ways, neither of which is likely to have any impact. Because the other 80% of the planet is living without considering the environmental effects of its decisions. Should the thinking person breed? Does it even matter? I have to assume, no.

(Photo credit:sarah gilbert)

Is there such a thing as being "moderate" in anything, anymore? You don't hear the term much these days. Green-leaning folk tend to be lumped together at one end of the spectrum, with labels ranging from "environmentalist" (sounds serious, doesn't it?) to "crunchy-granola hippie" ('nuf said). Personally, I've always aligned myself as what I call a "midstreamer," trying to share new (old?) concepts about simpler, more natural living in bite-sized chunks that people can integrate into their modern lifestyles.

"Hypocrisy" is a label that gets hurled at green-minded folks who find themselves somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. But sometimes, the critics have a point. How can you say you care about the environment if you continue to indulge in outmoded, wasteful ways? Green Muze lists up a whole host of eco-hypocracies:

• Are reusable bags a cover for your rampant consumerism?
• Have you made no real effort to change your gas-guzzling ways?
• Does meat play a starring role in your diet?
• Is your jet-setting carbon footprint still flying high?
• Have you exempted yourself from the concept of population control?
• Are eco-celebrities still pulling the wool over your eyes?
• How green can you be if your whole life is super-sized?
• Soy what?

Granted, the lists points out some valid concerns. If you're completely unwilling to change your wasteful ways ... if you deploy green products merely as eco-chic accessories ... You may have justly earned the eco-hypocrite title. Still, we'd ask a little patience and understanding for those who are still midstream in their green journeys. After all, they're wading toward a greener shore.

(Photo credit:ilco, stock.xchng)

How far do you think we should go to solve climate change? Enforced carbon diets for everyone? A global economic revolution moving to a steady state economy? What about population control?

While technology advances to allow people to have as many children as they want (as per the recent birth of octuplets in the United States), and with 2.5 billion people on the planet in 1950, 6.7 billion now and likely 9 billion by 2050 some people are beginning to wonder if the latter might be the solution to many of our environmental problems.

Population control is obviously problematic (as in China where one-child limits have led to infanticide, forced abortions and adoptions). In Britain, the chair of the Downing Street Commission on Sustainable Development has come out in favor of government controls, saying that in limiting a country's environmental impact, reducing birth rates "is probably the single most substantial and cost-effective intervention that governments could be using."

People argue that such controls are necessary with 20% of the world's population residing just in China. Others say that reducing population could be done through education, teaching children the environmental impact of having children and letting them grow up to make their own decisions. But of course, not all children around the world go to school.

I don't pretend to know what the answer is, but it just might be in the planet's best interest that we at least open up the discussion.

(Photo credit:by-your-⌘, flickr)