Ethical Virus

Ethical children

Number of progeny evidently wasn't an issue that troubled Jacob in the book of Genesis. You may remember he had 12 sons, resulting in all sorts of jealousy around that coat. Neither was it problematic for celluloid families: the Von Trapps and the Waltons, each weighing in with seven children - the same number of kids as the average family in Sudan (one of the poorest countries in the world) attempts to sustain today.
But, increasingly, having kids throws up sustainability angst in the developed world. Because while that 'mother earth' moniker might give the impression that the planet is waiting with open arms to welcome our offspring, we know we're already pushing it. Europeans use three times their fair share of land and resources to sustain their lifestyles, while Americans push this up to five times.

So it seems we are duty bound to weigh up the ticking of biological clocks against a backdrop of increasing environmental degradation and over-population. The global village - a rather twee term considering its industrial size - currently stands at 6.5bn, but is predicted to expand to 9bn by 2050. And according to Professor Omer Moav, an economist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the answer to combating global poverty lies in having fewer children. Meanwhile, eminent scientists Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey and Professor Guillebaud, chair of the Optimum Population Trust, have called for urgent discussion on population management. They are both of the opinion that the world just cannot sustain a burgeoning global population, even with dramatic lifestyle alterations which might mitigate pressure on life-sustaining resources: shelter, food and water. As the global population is currently growing at around 76m every year, they are not kidding.

If, however, you remain determined to contribute to the population explosion you can take heart from new calculations from the University of Bucharest, which suggest that the earth could sustain 200,000 times the amount of people housed already. However, you don't have to read between the lines very much, to draw the conclusion that it would be very unpleasant, not least due to an almighty bun fight over essential life-sustaining resources.

In which case, the critical question becomes: how can we secure these resources? New parents would seem to have a vested interest in supporting renewable energy, local food and water and energy conservation, - all of which would increase security for future generations. They can also increase ethical credentials by making theirs an eco baby, clad in a washable nappy (www.changenappy.co.uk). Don't be distracted by the Environment Agency's 2005 study on nappies which concluded there was little difference between washables and disposables. Among a number of flaws, it failed to acknowledge that the 8m disposable nappies thrown away each day in the UK will take around 500 years to degrade in landfill. It's one example of how you can ensure that the pitter patter of tiny feet leaves less of an unsustainable footprint.

lucy.siegle@observer.co.uk