GINK
Sunday, July 13, 2014 at 5:45AM By Selena Randall
I learned a new acronym this week – GINK. What’s GINK I hear you ask?
It stands for Green Intentions No Kids, and refers to couples who have made the decision for the sake of the planet not to have kids.
Why would they do that? Aren’t we here to procreate and produce future citizens?
As I consider my friends and family, there are those amongst us with children, some with four or five children, and those amongst us with none. Of course the reasons for having children or not is entirely personal for each couple whether intentional or not. I wouldn’t want to ask those without children if they are GINKs for fear of offending, but reading about GINKs made me think…
Here in North America and Canada our energy and resource consumption per individual is the highest in the world. So it follows that as far as the planet is concerned bringing children into the world here has a far greater impact on the world than if the child is born into a poor community in Africa or Bangladesh or elsewhere in the developing world. We live in a consumer society using natural resources as fast as we can, generating waste and gas emissions that far exceed anywhere else in the world. Every child our society produces contributes to that, and as our population continues to grow, that situation gets worse.
To throw some metrics into the debate, the World Bank publishes CO2 emissions in tonnes per capita regularly, which gives some measure of our impact. The data for 2010 show the contrast between the developing world and North America clearly. The CO2 emissions per head in metric tonnes - Bangladesh 0.3, Ethiopia 0.2, Ghana 0.4, Nigeria 0.5, Columbia 1.6, Germany 9.1, China 6.2, Mexico 3.8, Philippines 0.9, United Kingdom 7.9, Canada 14.7, United States 17.6.
Shocking isn’t it, to consider how much CO2 we are generating through our lifestyles . . . and that our children are making the situation worse.
Now I’m not suggesting that couples should not have children – as I said earlier, that is an entirely personal decision and not necessarily within a couple’s control. However, we are responsible for those children and how they live their lives; the resources they use and the waste they produce. And clearly, here in North America and Canada, according to the World Bank report we ‘could do better’.
I don’t see many classes on bringing up low-impact children, and I think we have a long way to go. If you have any ideas or positive practices you have tried, please do write in.
In the meantime, be thankful for all the single people and childless couples out there, who whether they are GINKs or not, are helping our society to reduce its impact on the planet!
Reader Comments (3)
I only realized after it was over, that July 11 was World Population Day. Growth Busters have some good World Population Day stuff. Also the World Population Day website.
Telling people that having children is one of the reasons why our planet is falling apart is like saying that having a gun is one of the reasons why there is murder. We all know its bad choices that bring death. We choice to be materialistic, greedy, and self centered. That is what brings death to our planet and to the human race. Until we learn to take responsibility for our actions and teach children to do the same, nothing will change. For all of you out there who want to argue over population and send me all your reasons why small families or having no children in this world is the answer, don't bother. I can't return my 7 children and even if I could, I don't want to. Having a large family has made us more aware of what we use and we all work together to use less. We can't afford to be consumers, we must be givers. The most important thing we have tried to teach our children that material things and useless activity is not what is important, its who they are inside that matters. It's MCC first, then if we can't find a pair of runners we will go buy new. In fact our oldest daughter just said her favorite thing is getting a big bag of hand me downs. We don't do a lot of outside sports, that is a lot of driving. If you need to play baseball grab some siblings and some friends and go play! Your bike is broken, lets fix it! You have out grown your bike, now we can give it to someone who is in need. Exchanging population data is not going to change our environment. Each one of us doing what we can, being responsible for our "piece" of the world, and sharing what we have learned along the way is how we will change the world around us. After all isn't this what SETI is all about?
You raise a good point, Cari. There is no point in discussing whether you [or I] should have had the children we have. We have them and we are grateful for each one of them.
The relevant question for us [and many others] is: How do we as a family live responsibly? And your points about what responsible living means for you are well taken. Certainly this is at least a part of what SETI is all about.
But SETI is also about more. In this discussion there are those who do not, or have not yet, had children. They are thinking about whether they should have children -- and if they want children, should they have no children or should they adopt children who are already in this world but don't have parents. SETI is a place to discuss this -- and we may not all agree.
An issue I, personally, think about is the whole concept of growth. Almost everything around us suggests that growth is a good thing, including population growth. We are told that the world population was more or less steady around 1 billion people until the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution people had large families and populations grew, but pestilence and famine would periodically decimate a local population. This is what kept population steady at 1 Billion. Under such circumstances it made sense to strive for large families. Population growth was needed to restore the decimated local population.
Today we seem to have conquered pestilence and famine. So how should that affect our thinking with respect to growth, even population growth? I'm now 71 years old. I won't have any more children! But I do need to consider whether I buy recycled or new, whether to ride my bicycle or my car, etc. Absolutely! But I also need to ponder my advice to those who are in the midst of forming their own family -- and it probably should not be the same to everyone.