Latest comments posted about Too big for the planet? on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1211-Too-big-for-the-planet- http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1211-Too-big-for-the-planet- Shouldn’t the availability of food be a concern to all? Population expansion has already increased the pressure on food supply. Recently, organic food has gained popularity in Europe and America. This means more land is needed to produce the same amount of food as before. Surely, organic food is good for heath and the environment, but I wonder how many people could this way of production sustain? and how many people will be short of food supply and starving to death in the end? Besides food, the demand for other consumer goods will increase along with the rise in population and the living standards. Consciousness and morality are far from strong enough to restrain people’s desire for consumption. It is also too late to resort to them to achieve this goal. The US is a good example. Also please do not forget that even in Germany and Japan, which lead other developed nations in environmental protection, per capita consumption is much higher than that of developing countries. That is true that in the past siblings of many Chinese families wore clothes passed down from their elders. But was it because of poverty or for the purpose of saving resources? Nowadays, consumption of a Chinese child is much higher than the total of several kids in the past. Among the examples on frugality given in the article, how many are due to poor economic situation and how many are for the purpose of saving resources? Undoubtedly, the world’s population is growing to challenge the limit that our planet is capable of accommodate. I agree that it is a shame that we are having to conform to narrower and narrower norms. We should respect the freedom of choices by individuals. In a so-called free world, people’s right to make a choice is supposed not to be limited, just like some people choose to be vegetarian, some others like to meat people; some people like to have a big family, while some others prefer a small family. The most important is that we need make people realize the consequences of their choices, their responsibility to the society. The combination of economic and moral means is the best way to make people make a responsible choice. Wang Tao from Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:54:52 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1211#comment-4154 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1211#comment-4154 Whilst it would be difficult/ wrong to impose limits in the UK. It would be good for couples/ individuals to sign a voluntary agreement not to have more than one or two children. This way we would do no more than replicate current population (at least in the UK). It would also allow people to make the choice not to have children, thus reducing the population. In China has the population decreased? Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:20:30 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1211#comment-4170 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1211#comment-4170 I am working for Tyndall Centre Sussex, based at SPRU, University of Sussex. The Tyndall Centre is an invisible centre consisting of 6 core institutions at different universities as well as many other partners headquartered at Norwich. Keep in touch and I will be very happy to exchange ideas with you. You can contact me at tao.wang@sussex.ac.uk I tried to send emails to your directly but they kept bouncing back. If possible could you please send me an email? Tao Wang Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:36:26 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1211#comment-4159 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1211#comment-4159 I agree with the points in your English comment. The population issue can not be evaluated by individual factors such as personal feeling or family bond. And since we now have this severe context, we may not be in the situation to satisfy the emotional need of each family. The situation is much more complex, and the reseach and debate required may go far beyond the range of this article. But now that it is so hard for all countries to join in the Kyoto Framework, we can not expect all couples to be considerate and responsible at this moment. By the way, you work for Tyndall in Norwich? Can I ask for your contact information for further exchange? Angie Lee, UNIDO-ITPC bluesky[A]unido-itpc.org Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:25:20 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1211#comment-4157 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1211#comment-4157 I cannot help feeling confused about how the writer constructs this article. To me it reads like a delicately crafted trick. 1. The interview only goes as far as the family with many children, no words from the other side at all. Why some people would feel necessary to have no more than 2 children, or even less? Is the story therefore biased by the one-side words? 2. The major concerns for us to have too many children in the next generation are the pressure they would impose on resources and environment, as pointed out in the first two paragraphs. However, the rest of the article hardly addresses this anymore, but focusing on the sense of being accompanied by a large family and how cherishing that is. As single son of my family, I very much miss that feeling too, and being regretful not having brothers or sisters growing up with me. Luckily our cousins stay together very closely, and they somehow compensate the regret. I certainly admit that living in a large family will be a great experience and having more fun and more sense of being accompanied and supported. Education of each child is also possible to be better and more effective than spoiled child/children in small family. However, we all know that is not the most important concern of whether or not we should choose to have many children. Raise the problem at the beginning and make a way to bypass it in the rest of the article, I personally am very disappointed to this article. Tao Wang, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:23:46 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1211#comment-4155 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1211#comment-4155 I don't think large families will increase the burdens on the planet and damage the environment. The key issue is the lifestyle we've chosen. We had siblings when we were young, we shared clothes and other things, except that food had to be prepared for everyone. Affection between children is good for their growth. What we need to pay attention to is our lifestyle. Is it causing excessive waste? Honestly, I don't think the population is the problem. You will get my point when you take the US as an example to consider their consumption by the population. Tue, 07 Aug 2007 05:27:31 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1211#comment-4151 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1211#comment-4151 I'm afraid I simply don't buy it. Having children is not unethical. But continuing to increase the population of the planet at this time of emergency is. It is simply selfish. I am considering not having children at all. I become very very angry when selfish and egotistical people will not consider their actions. Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:49:28 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1211#comment-4143 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1211#comment-4143