What overpopulation?

Dear Editor:

This is addressed to those folks who feel that our planet is not overpopulated. Ask yourself why so many people (billions of them, in fact) live in places that are frequently subjected to various natural disasters, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornados, droughts, typhoons, diseases (such as malaria, tuberculosis, dengue fever, leprosy, etc.). Ask why they live in coastal cities that are at or below sea level, right next to airports, active volcanoes and contaminated industrial lands, hillsides that have been shaved of trees causing landslides, etc. Ask why they suffer repeated unimaginable calamities, then stay (and rebuild) in the same location as soon as that particular catastrophe is over.

The reason: There's no other place to live. In other words, our population is continuing to grow, while the amount of habitable and arable land is not.

Overpopulation! How dense can we get?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Environmentalists are missing the point

Dear Editor:

Saturday was Earth Day.

Over the years, I have become increasingly environmentally aware and concerned. I have also become increasingly focused in my actions to leave this planet cleaner than I found it.

I have studied what a large number of prominent environmental agencies are promoting to reduce damage to our air, water, and land.

Here is an example of what one of the world's foremost environmental foundations—The David Suzuki Foundation—suggests to improve our environment:

1. Reduce home energy use by 10%
2. Choose an energy-efficient home and appliances
3. Don't use pesticides
4. Eat meat-free meals one day a week
5. Buy locally grown and produced food
6. Choose a fuel efficient vehicle
7. Walk, bike, carpool or take transit
8. Choose a home close to work or school
9. Support alternative transportation
10. Learn more and share with others

Greenpeace's priorities are:

1. Stop climate change
2. Save our seas
3. Protect ancient forests
4. Demand Peace and Disarmament
5. Say no to genetic engineering
6. Eliminate toxic chemicals
7. End the nuclear threat
8. Encourage sustainable trade

EarthFirst! advocates:

1. Stopping the dangerous spread of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
2. Halting the Biscuit logging project
3. Stopping the Camisea project in Peru
4. Fair trade for farmers
5. Saving the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from Oil Drilling
6. Protecting the Tongass National Forest from logging
7. Stopping the Seal Slaughter in Canada
8. Jackson Forest
9. Mountaintop Mining

While all of the aforementioned are worthwhile objectives and actions, the one that will reduce defiling human impact on our planet the most is missing from every one of their lists: Stop adding to the human overpopulation of our planet.

Every baby in developed countries contributes 5,000 to 8,000 diapers to the landfills. Hundreds, if not thousands, of their toys will find their way to the landfills, as well. And clothes, shoes (many with toxic batteries), furniture, computers, etc. Millions of litres of gasoline will be burned driving each of those children to and from school, sports activities, friends' homes, etc. And most of those children will grow up to be consuming polluters, just like you and me.

Since the inception of Earth Day in 1970, we have added 3 billion people to our planet (increasing it from 3.5 billion to 6.5 billion people), almost doubling its population.

I have asked numerous environmental organizations how many children someone concerned about our environment should have. I'm still waiting for an answer.

I ask you: Which is more damaging to our planet—six and a half billion humans flushing toilets, driving cars, and consuming natural resources, or twelve, eighteen, or twenty-four billion humans flushing toilets, driving cars, and consuming natural resources?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Children harm the environment

Dear Editor:

In your November 18th editorial, you told Sun readers, "It's your planet." Then you asked us, "What are you doing to protect its future?"

Well, I am probably doing more than most people to protect our planet. Yes, I reduce, reuse, and recycle like most people, and I take transit whenever possible, but in addition to that, I am likely contributing much less to pollution and global warming than most people reading this.

I have chosen not to have children, and by doing so, I am producing much less pollution (not driving child A to soccer, child B to piano lessons, child C to a friend's, and all three to school five days a week, for example), and leaving a lot more space and natural resources for all your kids, and theirs, and... And the kids I haven't produced won't be producing even more polluting consumers in the future.

Did you know that having a child is one of the worst actions you can take against the environment? It's much worse than owning a car, buying plastic items and throwing out garbage (Consumer Reports, November, 1992), because "virtually every child born into a middle-class American family can look forward to a lifetime of consuming resources and energy, and creating waste and pollution, on a scale unmatched in human history." And let's not forget that each baby in developed countries uses between 5,000 and 8,000 disposable diapers (Consumer Reports, August, 1998). That's a lot of, uh,...dirty diapers!

It's not just the environment—if you take a closer look, you'll become convinced that almost every problem in the world is due to overpopulation. If you consider local problems such as noise, stress, healthcare, pollution, education, crime, and depletion of natural resources, a reduction in population would relieve much of each of them. How much noise would there be if we had one half the traffic, one half the lawnmowers, etc.? How much stress would we be feeling if there were one half the traffic, one half the noise? Don't you feel stressed when the duration of your commute gets longer every year? How do you think future generations will feel about commutes that are twice as long? Three times? Hospitals wouldn't be overcrowded, waiting lists would be halved if there were one half the patients. With half the number of cars, trucks and buses, there would be one half the amount of pollution we are forced to breathe every day. Schools wouldn't need so many portables—or any at all—if there were one half the number of students.

If we had a smaller population (and if more of us reduced, reused and recycled more) we wouldn't have to ship our garbage hundreds of kilometers to be disposed of. If there were fewer of us, the east coast of North America would still have lots of cod and turbot, and wild salmon would still be plentiful on the west coast; not to mention all the other species that are on the brink of extinction or have already been wiped out. Every tree we cut down is another habitat destroyed.

Cast your gaze farther afield and it is just as clear that overpopulation is the cause of most of the problems there, too. Overcrowding in cities causes increases in crime. Air, water and land pollution is caused by too many people dumping their waste into the air and water, and onto the land. Too many people producing too much carbon dioxide destroys the ozone layer and contributes to global warming. Since trees have a cooling effect (not to mention their air-cleaning function), cities are much hotter than forests.

Farm land is being sold for development. Millions of trees are cut down (and burned) to make room for more housing. How many houses have ever been razed so more trees could be planted? Vinyl siding isn't nearly as nourishing as corn or tomatoes. Disease epidemics run rampant through crowded cities. Many floods and landslides are due to land clearing and development; asphalt and concrete don't hold land together nearly as well as roots do, and they don't absorb water nearly as well as open ground and living trees do.

The habitable land on planet Earth is finite. The population of the planet increases by 250,000 (net) every day - that's three new babies to house and feed every second. Even if we could increase food production to accommodate all of these new hungry people, where will we find enough potable water to keep them alive and healthy? If you think overcrowding is not a problem, imagine sharing a phone booth with one other person, then two, then three, then...

There's nothing wrong with not having children. In fact, Mother Earth will thank you.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Pay equity

Dear Editor:

More of the same-old, same-old, eh? "Women's pay still lags behind male colleagues" in the March 8th edition tells us yet again that women, on average, are earning only 70% of what men make.

It would be interesting to learn how much childfree women who haven't truncated their education, frequently arrived late, left early, been absent from work, and who weren't out of the workforce for one to ten or more years earned compared to men.

I'll bet it's closer to 95%.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

What are you doing about it?

Dear Editor:

The next time you are crammed into public transit, or sitting in traffic, watching the traffic light change for the fourth time, ask yourself: "Does this planet really need more humans?" 

And what are you doing about it?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Let them eat cake!

Dear Editor:

Fertile agricultural land is under attack (BC's finest excluded from land reserve, November 28), and has been for decades! Farmers want to sell their land for massive profits. Developers want to build homes, industrial parks and shopping centers for big bucks. After all, our burgeoning population needs a place to live, work and shop, doesn't it?

It has been rumored that, in 1789, on the eve of the French Revolution, when Marie Antoinette, the Queen of France, was told that the people didn't have any bread to eat, she coldly replied, "Let them eat cake!" Well, I'll bet when the last vestige of farm land is paved over, the farmers and developers will coldly bellow, "Let them eat asphalt!"

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

School taxes

Dear Editor:

While I agree with Antje Wilson (Any strike 'savings' should go back to parents, Voice of the People, October 31), that money "saved" during the teachers' strike should not go to the government, I don't think that only parents should receive the refund. What about those of us who don't have children, who pay school taxes year after year and never get the service we pay for? If there is a refund of "saved" funds, it should go back to EVERY taxpayer, regardless of how many children they have.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

In praise of females

Dear Editor:

Paul Sheehan's "In praise of female sexuality," which appeared on August 15, is ridiculous! Mr. Sheehan declares that young women (aged 17 to 23) should display numerous parts of their anatomy in order to attract males, all with the aim of getting pregnant. How demeaning to all women!

Mr. Sheehan, women are so much more than ambulatory uteruses! They have minds and hearts and skills and ambitions. They are doctors, truck drivers, lawyers, construction workers, journalists. And yes, some are also mothers, but not all women can have children, and not all women want children.

If Mr. Sheehan had his way, every woman under 50 would be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen for at least 35 years of her life! What a Neanderthal attitude!

I sincerely hope that Mr. Sheehan never needs the attention of a female surgeon -- he may just end up one of the very few eunuchs of this century!

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Post-Partum Depression

Dear Editor:

I can't help but wonder just how much of what's called Post-Partum Depression is due to hormonal changes, and how much is due to the sudden realization that you're going to be shackled to that little person 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for the next three to four years; that your sex life will be no more than a fond memory; that you're going to be continuously squabbling with your partner over money, chores, lack of affection, etc.; that you'll now be spending all your money on diapers, medicines, and baby clothes, instead of books, fun activities, trips, etc., that energy and excitement will soon be replaced by fatigue and boredom.

How many cases of Post-Partum Depression are really just cases of reality sinking in?

When the baby arrives, one is hit between the eyes with:

Financially -- average cost is $200,000 per healthy child...

Physically -- little sleep, run ragged, breasts sore & sagging, split nipples, vagina stretched, episiotomy, incontinence, extruded uterus...

Socially -- can't make love when you want to (in fact, sex becomes a rare treat, if not a fond memory), can't travel, can't sleep in, must watch kids' TV shows, life depends on a babysitter...

Career -- job performance suffers, limits imposed by family, promotions denied...

Globally -- you are exacerbating air, water, land, noise, light pollution; overpopulation & overcrowding; depletion of resources...

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Never enough!

Dear Editor:

I can't believe the parental sense of entitlement exhibited by Catrina Runcie (More money needed for more kinds of child care, Sept. 15). She claims that the massive injection of funds into day care is "too little too late." The example you cited in your September 10th article, "Child care subsidies increased," shows that the subsidy surged from $627 to $6,996. How can anyone possibly call that "too little"? That's a 1,016% increase!

Day care for children from birth to five years of age isn't enough for her; now she wants day care for children over five years of age, as well. She complains about having to care for her own child during summer and other breaks. She also demands day care before and after school.

Do you suppose she'd be satisfied with free, 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week day care? Then she could pop in from time to time for a minute or two to re-introduce herself to the child she chose to create.

Perhaps the person who forced her to have the child should assume responsibility for raising it.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Part-time Parenting

Returning to Work

Dear Editor:

I am amazed that many women expect to return to work at their previous level or higher (Women find re-entry difficult after time off, March 26), after taking time off to have children. If I quit my job to travel, or to just kick back and relax, would my job be waiting for me, and would I be realistic in expecting a raise in position, responsibility, and pay --  especially if I chose to work less than before?

Whether you're changing your locale or changing diapers, you're absent from the workplace, and thus missing the experience and training that those who have stayed on the job are getting. Staying off work for a year or more would mean that technology and techniques are changing, while you're not. Employers have to devote time and money into re-training people who have been away for extended periods of time.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

What goes around...

Dear Editor: 

I have chosen not to have children, partly because I can't afford the expenses involved, yet I can hardly wait for the national childcare program to come into effect. Then, every time someone with kids asks me, "Who will take care of you when you're old?", I can answer, "Your children will. After all, it's only fair -- since I helped you pay strangers to raise them from birth to adulthood."

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Who is selfish?

Dear Editor: 

Since I formed NO KIDDING! back in 1984, I've done over a thousand interviews for radio, television, newspapers, magazines and the Internet. In almost every interview and open-line radio and TV show, I've been accused of being selfish for choosing not to have children. But I ask you, who is more selfish: The person who chooses to forgo the "joys of parenthood," or the one who has several children, even though they know that they are exacerbating the problems that overpopulation creates (air, water, land, noise and light pollution, traffic gridlock, housing and parking dilemmas, depletion of natural resources, devastation of animal habitats, elimination of innumerable species of plants and animals, etc.)? 

There are myriad ways to "give back" to society without putting another human on Earth. There are lots of kids who don't have a mother or father, so if someone wants a child that badly, they could adopt -- and that's a lot more altruistic than adding to the overpopulation problem. In the animal world, animals raise the young of sick and dead friends and relatives all the time. Humans should do the same. Instead of devoting all your time, money and energy on biological copies of yourself, you could volunteer with poor children, or with children with learning disabilities, or with physical handicaps. Big Brothers and Big Sisters, for example, never have enough volunteers. 

The fact that 85% of working women return to the workforce within a year of giving birth leads me to think that they shouldn't have had kids in the first place if they're so much in a hurry to abandon their children (by giving them over to a stranger to raise) and go back to work. Or that they shouldn't have had kids because they can't afford to take the time to raise them. Who ends up raising most children in western society: The stranger who spends eight to ten hours every day with them, or the parent, who spends a "quality hour" with them? 

And who is more selfish: The person who assumes full responsibility (legal, financial, social, moral, etc.) for their decisions, or the one who expects others to cover the costs of the choices they've voluntarily made?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

There's something wrong with this picture

Dear Editor: 

There is something wrong in the photo that accompanied the story about the parents who were trying to teach their seventeen- and twelve-year-olds to accept responsibility for household chores by going on strike (Parents on 'on strike' against lazy kids, December 9). The parents are roughing it in a tent in the driveway, while the irresponsible kids are enjoying all the comforts of home -- sleeping in the luxury of their beds, watching TV and DVDs, using the computers, chatting with their friends on the phones, using the microwave to heat their frozen dinners, etc. 

If they want the lesson to sink in, the situation should be reversed.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Adding to the Problem

Dear Editor: 

I found myself nodding my head in agreement as I read C. Isaac's November 3rd letter, "Trees and animals pay price for people." S/he made some excellent points regarding the spread of development causing the elimination of trees, farmland, and empty fields. But s/he seems to overlook the cause of increasing development -- people needing a place to live, and as the number of people increases, the number of human habitats must also increase (which causes the number of animal habitats to diminsh). 

The sentence that brought an abrupt end to my nodding, however, was "I am tired of trying to memorize the landscape so that one day, I can describe to my children what it used to be like and what kinds of animals uses to exist before we destroyed it." His/her children? Doesn't s/he understand that by having children s/he is just adding to the problem? After all, those children will grow up and will need a place to live -- which means that more trees will be removed to make way for more housing. 

Anyone who has produced children has no right to complain about development, air, water, land and noise pollution, resource depletion, or traffic congestion.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Insulting women

Dear Editor: 

While reading Elizabeth Nickson's August 26th piece, "Give mothers the tools to be autonomous," several contradictory thoughts entered my mind. Those same thoughts came to mind while reading Barbara Stuart's September 1st letter, "Ignoring the highest ideal has ugly consequences." 

First of all, regarding having children, Nickson claims that "we aren't having them at all." Excuse me? What do you call all those miniature human beings I see in strollers, on playgrounds, in neighbors' back yards, and in kiddy seats in the back of all those SUVs? Secondly, it isn't "politicians and bureaucrats" who made "having children unattractive," it's the changes that our society has undergone over the centuries. Children have gone from being a financial asset to being a financial burden. 

In the past, the vast majority of people lived an agrarian lifestyle, and required lots of children as cheap labour on the farm. Now, however, more than 80% of our population lives in cities. How many kids does one need to cut the grass and take out the garbage once a week? Before the industrial revolution, we needed large numbers of workers to manufacture goods. Now, one person watches a machine do the work that numerous people used to do. In order to wage a successful war in the past, we needed many warriors (a.k.a. cannon fodder) to attack another huge army. Now, a laser-guided missile can destroy much more property and kill many more people than it used to take hundreds of infantry to do. Infant mortality rates have plummeted in most of the world, so we no longer have to have ten or fifteen offspring to ensure that at least one will outlive its parents. Adult children used to take care of elderly parents. Now pension plans and seniors' residences care for the aged.

Controlling our fertility has enabled women to continue their education and attain meaningful and rewarding careers. It's no longer necessary for women to curtail their education or careers to care for unplanned, unwanted, and unaffordable children. How's that for autonomy, Ms. Nickson? And as for Ms. Stuart's assertion that "to have the gratification of sex without the consequence of children" seems to imply that having children is the price one pays for enjoying sex. While that used to be true, the invention of safe, reliable, affordable, convenient and accessible contraception has enabled us to control the number of children we have and when we have them. Your great-grandparents may have had seventeen children, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they wanted seventeen children.

Ms. Nickson suggests that we should "pay women to have children." I have another surprise for you, Ms. Nickson. We already do. What do you call paid maternity leave? How about tax deductions for each child one produces? And let's not forget about the fact that taxpayers already give parents compensation for babysitting, daycare, summer & day camp, and sports school, which are all tax deductible. Clothing for children is tax-exempt (and many parents cheat the system by claiming that clothing for themselves is for their children and, therefore, tax-exempt). In Canada, Employment Insurance (EI) benefits are being paid to people who are not ready or willing to return to work -- parents. 

If Ms. Nickson and Ms. Stuart really feel that we should have twice as many cars on the road, twice the air, water, land, and noise pollution, twice the demand on housing, half the trees, etc., why not just open our borders to more immigrants and refugees? And if Ms. Stuart truly believes her notion that a woman's raison d'être is having children, I think she is selling the vast majority of women short.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Pollution solution

Dear Editor:

It should come as no surprise to anyone that big cities have big noise pollution (Revved-up traffic noise plagues U.S. cities, May 1). More people means more cars, trucks, buses,  motorcycles, snowblowers, lawnmowers, and leafblowers. More vehicles and equipment means more noise.

What was truly shocking and upsetting was learning that being subjected to such noise is actually harmful to health. But then again, if you think about it, noise causes stress and prevents people from sleeping. Stress and lack of sleep are major contributors to ill health. Makes sense to me.

So what is the solution to the noise pollution? Better laws? Better mufflers? Electric vehicles?

Maybe.

How about fewer people? I guess a stable or reduced population is not a realistic expectation as long as governments continue to bribe people to make more people.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Mother of two?

Dear Editor:

Why did you choose to headline a March 23rd piece "Trial begins in drug dispute in which mother of two shot dead"?

Did you think that readers would assume that the "mother of two" was an innocent bystander?

Did you suppose that readers wouldn't believe that a "mother of two" would deal cocaine?

Did you hope that, when people learned that she was dealing drugs, they would feel sorry for her -- and excuse her dealing cocaine -- because she was a "mother of two"?

If she hadn't had children, would you have described her as a "non-mother" or "mother of none"?

What does her being the "mother of two" have to do with her dealing drugs? Apparently -- in her mind -- absolutely nothing!

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Abdicating Responsibility

Dear Editor:

The preview of this Sunday's piece about the working poor prompted me to think of two factors that determine many people's economic status: (1) expectations, and (2) consequences.

Simply put: One must have realistic expectations, and one must consider the consequences of one's actions.

More specifically, if one has very little education, and works part time at a low-end job, can one reasonably expect to drive a relatively new car, live in an upscale neighborhood, and take annual vacations in distant tropical lands?

If someone smokes tobacco, drinks alcohol, uses other drugs, gambles, buys prepared food, and has several kids, can they reasonably expect to live as comfortably as someone who doesn't blow their money on smokes, booze, other drugs, and casinos, and who buys only raw foods that are much less expensive (and much more healthful)? And kids cost a lot of money -- whether you're rich or poor; the Freemans, the Abbotsford, BC couple that was interviewed, chose to have four kids (and they have left the door open for more).

Need I say more?

I'm sure almost everyone would like to live in a big, beautiful house, drive high-end vehicles, take exotic vacations, etc., but such a lifestyle can't be enjoyed by everyone, especially when many people seem to have other priorities and limitations that preclude such a lifestyle.

The Freemans have abdicated almost all of their responsibilities. They have given their duty to control the number of children they have over to God, and have said that they will have as many children as He wants them to have. Perhaps they should ask God to pay for all the children He wanted them to have, instead of coming to you and me for funds.

They don't vote, which means that they have given control over their political, social, medical, and economic lives over to those of us who do vote.

People like the Freemans are completely irresponsible, immature and selfish for not assuming the responsibilities that most adults – including childfree adults -- accept.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Parents are getting away with murder!

Dear Editor:

It's happening again and again! Can you believe it? A judge in London, England decided not to hand a jail sentence to three fraud artists because they have children (Trio avoid jail in quiz show scam, April 8)! 

Then, on July 23, a BC judge gave a drunk driver (Kimberly Hensen) a conditional sentence of two years less a day, even though she killed a man, Tony Wheeler. Why no jail time? Because she has a child, and is expecting another (and was drinking while pregnant?). She will spend her sentence under house arrest, but can shop for groceries and run errands for her children.

What, no trips to the pub?

Wow, if that isn't an incentive to breed -- even more than the bribes various governments offer -- what is?

Think about it... Commit a crime, get caught, go to jail. Commit a crime -- even kill someone -- get caught, have a kid, stay free!

Too bad Clifford Robert Olson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Paul Bernardo, Karla Homolka, David ("Son of Sam") Berkowitz, Albert ("The Boston Strangler") De Salvo, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Albert Fish, Gary Leon ("The Green River Killer") Ridgway, Pedro ("The Monster of the Andes") Lopez, Dorothea Puente, Charles ("The Serpent") Sobraj, Dr. Harold Shipman, and other serial killers didn't know about this!

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Parental Sense of Entitlement

Dear Editor:

I don't understand the sense of entitlement that so many parents seem to have.

They appear to make several assumptions that I believe are unfounded:

1) Someone forced them to have children, and therefore, someone has to shape their workplace to accommodate their family lives;

2) Someone forced them to have children, and therefore, someone has to chip in -- big time -- to pay for those children;

3) All women have -- or will have -- children, and therefore, women must be allowed to work part time, flex time, at home, etc. for the same pay as a man who works full time.

I don't have kids, but I do a lot of volunteer work in the community. Should my employer be forced to give me several hours off -- with pay -- every day?

Why can't people just accept responsibility for the choices they've made?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Parents need common sense

Dear Editor:

I couldn't believe what I was reading in today's Sun (Parents: Trust your instincts, May 26). A child psychiatrist and his pediatrician wife are claiming that parents need only rely on their instincts and common sense. I've been teaching for more than thirty-five years, and I've encountered too many students who were the products of poor parenting.

While teachers, who have a child in their care for much less time than parents do, require university degrees, teacher training, practica and certification, all parents need is common sense? Unfortunately, common sense isn't all that common. While the vast majority of parents do a pretty good job of raising their kids, too many fall far short of what could objectively be considered good parents. Yet, Umesh and Preeti Jain tell parents that they should just "trust their own instincts."

What if your instincts tell you that to get a baby to stop crying, all you have to do is shake it violently or burn it with cigarettes? What if your instincts tell you that a growing baby can thrive on nothing more than water and white bread? What if your common sense tells you to share your beer, your cigarettes and/or your joints with your adolescent? Or to let your ten-year-old drive the car?

Come on! While a large number of parents seem to get by on their instincts and common sense, many need the professional help available from teachers, daycare workers, doctors, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, family counselors, police officers, and nurses. 

I find it highly irresponsible to tell parents to just go with what feels right to them. Many will -- and the rest of us will have to pick up the pieces.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Gay Marriage

Dear Editor:

Families come in all shapes and sizes. There are families with a mom and a dad and some kids. Some families have one parent at home, some kids, and maybe a step-parent. There are some with no kids. There are some with kids from the first marriage, kids from the second marriage, and even kids from the third marriage. Some have two adults of the same gender and some kids, or none.

How can anyone say that the purpose of marriage is to unite the two opposite sexes for the purpose of procreation? I've always thought of marriage as a commitment between two people to try to get along, to love, support and help each other, and to remain faithful if they both require fidelity and agree to it. Anything beyond that, such as having children, is optional.

Allowing only people of opposite genders or those who breed (or at least promise to breed) to get married is, indeed, discriminatory, and there's no logical, rational, or objective justification for that discrimination.

History and tradition are certainly not valid reasons for continuing the discrimination -- it's like saying that, throughout human history, we've always waged war, so war is the best way to settle disputes.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Parents don't have a monopoly on caring

Dear Editor:

Diane Selkirk's articulate, sensitive letter (Every parent wants a safer world, March 28) about how her having a child forces her to care and speak out about war touched me deeply. I, too, care and have spoken out, even though I have no children. Despite my agreeing with her sentiments, I was offended by the implication that only parents care. Even the title you gave to her letter implies that childfree people must want a chaotic, dangerous world.

Her claim that she is "busy trying to create a safe and loving home" isn't exclusive to her, nor to other parents. Doesn't (or at least, shouldn't) everyone want a safe and loving home, whether or not they have children? 

"My motherhood insists I speak out" implies that my non-parenthood insists that I shut up.

Having a child doesn't give you a monopoly on caring and compassion, nor does it necessarily mean that you are a good parent -- any more than owning a piano automatically makes you a concert pianist, or sleeping in the garage makes you a car. 

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Marriage means kids?

Dear Editor:

Tanya Gulliver's article (Please return wedding rings, Childless straights shouldn't be married either, January 9) would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. How can anyone say, "The purpose of marriage has been the uniting of the two opposite sexes for the purpose of procreation, the raising of children from the marriage and companionship."?

I always thought of marriage as a commitment between two people to try to get along, to support each other, and to remain faithful (if they both require fidelity and agree to it). Anything beyond that was optional.

Allowing only people who breed (or at least promise to breed) to get married is ridiculous. Or maybe we should allow people to marry only AFTER they've
reproduced.

Should a marriage be cancelled if the children die?

Perhaps we should set a minimum number of children required to make a relationship legal. Let's say you must have at least two kids. No, ten!

Ms. Gulliver's closing sentence, "Perhaps it's time to welcome all childless Canadians to the lesbian and gay community," is prophetic. After all, NO KIDDING! has been welcoming gays, lesbians, and trans-gendered people since its founding in 1984.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Rising health-care insurance costs

Dear Editor:

In your BUSINESS IN THE WORLD section on February 13, under the headline "Health-care insurance costs soar," it states that companies are cutting back on hiring due to soaring health-care insurance costs.

I'm not at all surprised, since many -- if not most -- health-insurance providers cover pre-natal, delivery, and all future health-care expenses (all of which can be enormous), but refuse to cover contraception and sterilization costs.

I ask you: Which will be more expensive in the long run -- paying for people to have babies, or paying for them not to have babies?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Cloning

Dear Editor:

Whether or not the claim that a company has actually cloned a human is true (Skeptics doubt clone claim, December 28), I believe that we should invest infinite amounts of time and money into infertility treatments and cloning the moment the last starving child is fed, the last lonely orphan is adopted, and the Earth's human population has fallen to a level where the species is considered in danger of extinction.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Adding to  air pollution

Dear Editor:

Is anyone really surprised that there's a brown cloud over Asia, and that it's a killer (Brown cloud over Asia a killer: scientists, August 12)?

As we continue to burn fossil fuels, cut down vast forests to accommodate more housing (and burn the trees we clear), pump innumerable toxins from factories into the air, and produce more and more humans who will, in turn, burn even more fossil fuels and cut down even more trees to accommodate even more housing, etc., we just continue to add to the air pollution problem.

It is common for many people in many Asian countries to wear face masks when they are outdoors in a futile attempt to filter out some of the toxins we are pumping into our air every minute of every day (they may trap a small portion of the larger particulate matter, but masks are absolutely useless in removing the minute particles and the gaseous toxins).

When will we actually do something to reduce the problem of air pollution? When everyone on the planet is wearing a face mask? Or when everyone dies before their 50th birthday?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Bribing people to make babies

Dear Editor:

Why should we bribe people even more to make babies (Give tax breaks to encourage baby-making, Letters, August 2)? Canadian taxpayers already give parents compensation for babysitting, daycare, summer & day camp, and sports school, which are all tax deductible. Clothing for children is tax-exempt (and many parents cheat the system by claiming that clothing for themselves is for their children and, therefore, tax-exempt). All this is on top of income tax deductions for dependents they chose to create.

Employment Insurance (EI) benefits are being paid to people who are not ready or willing to return to work -- parents.

If you lose your job, you're required to have worked 700 hours in order to qualify for EI benefits. If you're pregnant, you'll only need 600 hours. Maternity leave was doubled from 25 paid weeks to 50 (in 2000), while, if you lose your job, you can collect EI benefits for only 14 to 45 weeks, depending on conditions in your area. People on maternity leave don't have to fill out cards, because even though they're receiving EI benefits, they're not available for work.

If you really feel that we should have twice as many cars on the road, twice the air, water and noise pollution, twice the demand on housing, etc., why not just open our borders to more immigrants and refugees? 

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Who's dumb?

Dear Editor:

Mia Stainsby is absolutely right -- we have a lot to learn from the animals with whom we share this planet (Natural Wisdom, July 29).

When animal populations grow too large to be sustained by diminishing water, food, and range, their birth rate drops. That way, fewer animals, if any, are forced to suffer the agonizing pain of starving to death.

Humans, however, continue to breed at record rates (world population has more than doubled in only forty years), despite the fact that more than half of us are already dying of starvation and thirst, are forced to drink poisoned water, and/or are fighting for range.

Lower human population would mean more room for humans and other species, less threat to biodiversity, less fossil-fuel use, cleaner air and water, and less strain on the Earth's resources.

Makes you wonder who the "dumb animals" are, doesn't it?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Guilty Working Mothers

Dear Editor:

Zsuzsi Gartner's accidentally-hilarious March 14th piece, "Working Mother Guilt,"  missed several important points.

First of all, who forced these people to have children? Nobody. They chose to have them, and now they want to force the rest of us to pay strangers to raise them.

Ms. Gartner claims that "in order to achieve equality, women need access to affordable, quality daycare." No, Ms. Gartner, if women want to earn $1.00 for every dollar earned by men, they shouldn't have children, and then truncate their education, work part time, or quit work altogether. I'm a man, and I work part time. I make less than my co-workers who work full time. That's only fair. Should a part-time hamburger-flipper or janitor, for example, earn the same as a full-time lawyer or doctor?

Gartner asserts that there is a certain ambivalence about mothers of young children working full-time. That's true. But then again, maybe they should answer the following question before they decide to hand their baby over to a stranger: Who's raising your child? The person who spends eight to ten hours every day with it, or you, who spends a "quality hour" with it?

Ms. Gartner wants it all, yet many people accuse the childfree of being selfish.

She then complains about the expense of having children. Well, didn't you do your homework before you had them, Zsuzsi? Didn't you know that it costs, on average, $250,000 to raise a child from birth to 18 years of age? Did you think 5,000 to 8,000 diapers were given away free at every supermarket in the world for every child you produced? Did you think that the government would provide a larger home and vehicle to you for free just because you added another human being to our overcrowded planet?

Hey lady, if you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em!

She sure makes parenthood sound attractive: "Around and around we went, voices deranged with fatigue, talking about the loss of sleep, the loss of a sex life, the loss of friends." Sure makes you want to have a whole barnful of kids, doesn't it?

The statistic quoted, that 85% of working women return to the workforce within a year of giving birth, leads me to think that they shouldn't have had kids in the first place if they're so much in a hurry to abandon their children and go back to work. Or that they shouldn't have had kids because they can't afford to take the time to raise them.

Despite her claim that money's not the bottom line, why is she trying to coerce me into paying for her daycare?

She quotes many women as saying, "If I had to stay home full-time, I would be about 400 pounds, totally depressed, and a mental case." I say, "If you don't want to stay home with your kids for the first few years, don't have kids. You chose to have them, and you should have known what was involved in having kids before you had them."

Her complaint that "children are strictly a parental responsibility until they're five, at which point they miraculously become a collective responsibility" is unfounded. Children are always a parental responsibility. I'd like to know when some parents are going to start accepting responsibility for their children.

She states, "I also believe that my son will benefit from having a mother who has work she values." It's a shame she doesn't value her most important job -- motherhood.

She goes on to quote a working mother, "It's an exhausting job staying home with your kids." Homework! Research! Find out how deep the water is before you dive in.

She then complains of inequities in the taxation system. She can already deduct the cost of daycare, babysitting, summer & day camp, and sports school, but that's not enough for her. I have dogs, yet if I were to try to deduct dog-raising expenses, I'd be the joke of the month in every taxation center in Canada.

She complains how little she pays her son's "favourite caregiver" ("getting paid the equivalent of what a parking-lot attendant makes"). Why doesn't she just pay her more? Go ahead, Zsuzsi, pay her what she's worth. Just don't come running to me to contribute.

"As he gets older, I find myself wanting to spend more time with him." Well, what's stopping you? Surely not me!

In summing up, she asks, "What kind of mother am I? Good mother, bad mother, ...?" I don't know, Zsuzsi, but I'm sure your son knows. What I do know is that you're a part-time mother.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Successful women

Dear Editor:

How shallow! Sylvia Ann Hewlett measures women's success in the workforce by the amount of money they earn. Self-worth is not tied to net worth!

I teach at a private college, and I am a very successful teacher: Every evaluation I have ever had (by supervisors, peers, and students) has been superlative; my classes are all full (in fact, many of them have waiting lists); I enjoy my work immensely and find it very fulfilling. Shouldn't that be the measure of my success, instead of how much money I make?

I've had better-paying employment offered to me, but I've turned it down for two reasons: I have no interest in those particular occupations, and it would mean leaving the classroom.

Another point that Ms. Hewlett misses is that the majority of her "successful" women have children. She quotes statistics such as "33% of high-achieving women in general are childless at 40." Doesn't that mean that 67% of her high-achieving women have children? I, for one, find it remarkable that so many people who truncate their education, take large chunks of time off work, and often choose to work part time (if they return at all), can be among Ms. Hewlett's "high-achieving" women (i.e., earn big bucks). I work part time, and I make a lot less than my colleagues who work full time. Does that make me less successful? I guess, in Ms. Hewlett's eyes, it does.

Ms. Hewlett continues to push for changes in workplace policy that are "family-friendly." The problem with that is that the more benefits one select group of workers gets, the fewer are left for others. Many child-burdened workers already arrive late, leave early, refuse to travel, and to work weekends, certain shifts, overtime, holidays, etc. How about some equity at work? Why not a menu of "worker-friendly" policies?

Perhaps what the existence of these successful childfree women proves is that there's a lot more to life than making babies, and that making babies isn't for everyone.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Children and Pets

Dear Editor:

Does anyone else see the connection between two stories on page 3 of the November 3rd edition?  The article is entitled "Minister says more foster parents needed" and the photo is of Clarence Schramm (of the Rainforest Reptile Refuge) with yet one more unwanted pet.

Having children and pets -- and raising them responsibly -- takes a lot of time, patience, money and energy.  If you don't have a lot of all four, don't have children or pets.

If more people gave more thought to whether or not to have children and pets, we'd have a lot fewer unwanted and abandoned children and pets.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Not enough people yet?

Dear Editor:

Why are we spending so much money, time and energy helping people to make more people (New technique raises hope for infertile men to have children, July 11)?

Is there a shortage of humans on this planet?

Wouldn't it be better to invest in finding a cure for AIDS, pollution, cancer, famine, war, even overpopulation?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Recycling

Dear Editor:

I walk my dogs and jog several times a week, and I've noticed that a few of my neighbors NEVER put out any materials for recycling -- just garbage (two, three, or more cans every week, while my wife and I put out half a can).

Don't they use glass jars and bottles, tin and aluminum cans, plastic milk jugs and pop bottles? Don't they get supermarket and other store flyers? Don't they get this newspaper? Where are they putting all of their recyclables?  In the landfill?

What kind of a world are they leaving for their precious children and grandchildren?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Our Environment

Dear Editor:

Did you know that having a child is one of the worst actions you can take against the environment? It's much worse than owning a car, buying plastic items and throwing out garbage (Consumer Reports, November, 1992), because "virtually every child born into a middle-class American family can look forward to a lifetime of consuming resources and energy, and creating waste and pollution, on a scale unmatched in human history." And let's not forget that each baby in developed countries uses between 5,000 and 8,000 disposable diapers (Consumer Reports, August, 1998). That's a lot of, uh,...dirty diapers!

It's not just the environment -- if you take a closer look, you'll become convinced that almost every problem in the world is due to overpopulation.

If you consider local problems such as noise, stress, healthcare, pollution, education, crime, and depletion of natural resources, a reduction in population would relieve much of each of them. How much noise would there be if we had one half the traffic, one half the lawnmowers, etc.? How much stress would we be feeling if there were one half the traffic, one half the noise? Don't you feel stressed when the duration of your commute gets longer every year? How do you think future generations will feel about commutes that are twice as long? Three times? Hospitals wouldn't be overcrowded, waiting lists would be halved if there were one half the patients. With half the number of cars, trucks and buses, there would be one half the amount of pollution we are forced to breathe every day. Schools wouldn't need so many portables -- or any at all -- if there were one half the number of students. If we had a smaller population (and if more of us reduced, reused and recycled more) we wouldn't have to ship our garbage hundreds of kilometers to be disposed of. If there were fewer of us, the east coast of North America would still have lots of cod and turbot, and salmon would still be plentiful on the west coast; not to mention all the other species that are on the brink of extinction or have already been wiped out. Every tree we cut down is another habitat destroyed.

Cast your gaze farther afield and it is just as clear that overpopulation is the cause of most of the problems there, too. Overcrowding in cities causes increases in crime. Air, water and land pollution is caused by too many people dumping their waste into the air and water, and onto the land. Trees are cut down (and burned) to make room for more housing. Too many people producing too much carbon dioxide destroys the ozone layer and contributes to global warming. Since trees have a cooling effect (not to mention their air-cleaning function), cities are much hotter than forests. Farm land is being sold for development. Millions of trees are cut down to make room for more housing. How many houses have ever been razed so more trees could be planted? Vinyl siding isn't nearly as nourishing as corn or tomatoes. Disease epidemics run rampant through crowded cities. Many floods and landslides are due to land clearing and development; asphalt and concrete don't hold land together nearly as well as roots do, and they don't absorb water nearly as well as open ground and living trees do.

The habitable land on planet Earth is finite. The population of the planet increases by 250,000 (net) every day -- that's three new babies to house and feed every second. Even if we could increase food production to accommodate all of these new hungry people, where will we find enough potable water to keep them alive and healthy? If you think overcrowding is not a problem, imagine sharing a phone booth with one other person, then two, then three, then...

There's nothing wrong with not having children. In fact, Mother Earth will thank you.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Equal Pay

Dear Editor:

There is one sure way to guarantee that women earn the same as men: ensure that women don't get pregnant and end up truncating their education, taking months or years off work, working part time, arriving at work late, leaving work early, and spending a large part of their workday talking on the phone with their kids, or with the stranger being paid to raise their kids.

How can we reasonably expect someone (male or female) with less education, and who works less, to earn the same as someone who has more education and works more?

Should a part-time janitor earn as much as a full-time doctor or lawyer?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Alimony & Parental Responsibility

Dear Editor:

Alimony for life?  The recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada that grants possible lifelong support for a Burnaby woman (Divorce doesn't end duty to sick spouse, top court rules, March 26) may very well impose such a condition.  Well, it'll sure make people (yes, men and women) think twice before they fall into marriage, and recent court rulings that hold parents responsible for the misbehavior of their offspring should make a lot of people think long and hard about parenthood.  These decisions also give a lot more meaning to the expression "life sentence."

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

What is a parent?

Dear Editor:

What is a parent?  The dictionary says, "a father or mother," "one exercising the functions of a father or mother," and "any organism that generates another."  It seems that a large number of parents don't understand any of the above.

In 1984, I started a non-profit social club for couples and singles who, for whatever reason, have never had children.  I called it "NO KIDDING!" and we described it as a club for people who are not parents.  Over the past fifteen years, I have received thousands of calls, letters and e-mails from people wanting to join NO KIDDING! or start their own local chapter.  The vast majority of correspondents were, indeed, not parents.  Unfortunately, a large number of correspondents had kids, but either their ex-spouse had the kids, or the kids had grown and gone.  For some reason, they considered themselves no longer parents.  I had to explain that it doesn’t work that way; once a parent, always a parent -- it's apparent to me.

The only people in your family, for example, who are not parents are those who have never had children.  Your parents are parents.  Your grandparents are parents.  None of them are eligible to join NO KIDDING! and neither are you if you've had children.

It's a sad commentary when people who have offspring of any age consider themselves non-parents simply because their children are not living with them.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

"Family-friendly" Policies

Dear Editor:

It is discriminatory to grant a benefit to one person or group and deny it (or an equivalent) to another person or group. The following are examples of what has happened to me and to other NO KIDDING! members. 

When I started teaching many  years ago, I found that almost all of my colleagues present at after-hours meetings were either childfree or had grown kids. Those who had young children were at home with their kids before the closing bell had finished ringing. Even though I thought I wanted kids at that time, I felt that it was grossly unfair that certain people -- parents of young children -- were allowed to skip after-hours meetings, yet were making the same pay as those of us who were putting in an additional two, three, or more hours a week (since, not only were they absent from the meetings, they were also exempt from the extra work that resulted from those meetings).

Childburdened workers are often given preferential treatment over childfree workers: vacation date selection -- parents are often given first dibs so they can be with their families, non-parents are often left the dregs; meetings -- parents are often allowed to arrive late, leave early or skip meetings altogether, while childfree workers are expected to be there on time, and stay to the end; during meetings, parents are often distracted, and meetings are disrupted, by "crises" at home (such as "Where's the peanut butter?" or "Kim's picking on me!"); morning sickness and pre-natal doctor's appointments cause expectant mothers to miss a lot of work, even before the baby is born; overtime -- non-parents are often told to work overtime (often for no additional pay or other compensation), while parents are allowed to go home to their families; weekend and holiday work, as well as the less desirable shifts, are often assigned to childfrees, as is work that requires travel; childburdened workers often arrive late, leave early and are absent from work due to the kids, yet they make the same pay as those who put in a full day's work; flextime is often offered to childburdened workers, while childfree workers are held to a rigid schedule; when the childcare provider (the stranger being paid to raise one's kids) can't take the kid(s), parents often bring the kid(s) to work, which is distracting and dangerous -- productivity plummets because it's hard to concentrate on business when a toddler is rearranging your files, pouring your coffee into your keyboard, or screeching in the background, and adult workplaces are unsafe for little children because of sharp corners on furniture, doors that squish little fingers, heavy machines that can be pulled down on little heads, and stairs to fall down, and what toddler isn't curious to discover whether the yellow push pins on the bulletin board taste different from the red ones (and let's not forget about insurance liability!)?; on-site daycare and lactation rooms -- everyone pays for it, a few benefit from it; health insurance premiums are usually not proportional to usage -- in many cases, a couple with no kids pays the same as a couple with ten kids (and some companies pay for fertility treatments, prenatal services, delivery, pediatric services, etc., while refusing to pay for birth control or sterilization operations); parental leave -- while a parent is home with baby, childfrees must pick up the slack (often for no compensation or equivalent benefit); people pay property taxes based on the value of their property, not on the amount of public services -- water, garbage pickup, sewage treatment, etc. -- they receive, yet large families get much more service for their money; non-parents subsidize parents when "kids fly free," "kids stay free," and "kids eat free;" and, in Canada, babysitting, daycare, summer & day camp, and sports school are all tax deductible, and clothing for children is tax-exempt (many parents cheat the system by claiming that clothing for themselves is for their children and therefore tax-free). All of this simply means that every taxpayer who can't claim those deductions subsidizes those who do.

Why are we expected to do more because someone else has chosen to do too much?

I've heard some childburdened workers complain that they aren't promoted as quickly as other workers. Well, imagine you decided to take a 50-lap pit stop at the Indy 500. Could you rightfully complain that you didn't win the race? You consciously took six months, or eight months, or a year off. Everyone else was working and gaining work experience while you were away. And when you come back, time has to be spent to get you up to speed, as well.

Many employers (and co-workers) think that childfree workers don’t have families. We do have families. We have mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends, and we have lots of other people and pets who are important in our lives.

Janet had to work Thanksgiving for a co-worker with kids. She also observed that childburdened co-workers often arrived late and left early. Eric had to do all the traveling when his co-worker got pregnant. Melody is an American Sign Language interpreter who discovered that childfrees are assigned the early morning jobs because parents arrive too late to get to their assignments on time, and evening emergencies because childburdened workers wanted to be home with their families. Carol, a nurse, is constantly assigned the contagion cases, because pregnant co-workers, and those with kids, don't want to risk getting sick. Kaye was feeling extremely stressed at work, and asked if she could work less and job-share (for a reduction in pay, of course). She was told that the only way she could job-share was by getting pregnant and having a baby. Such a policy discriminates against men, and women who don't get pregnant. Keith, of our Rochester, NY chapter told me, "I've frequently had the responsibility to hire/fire people, and have been 'encouraged' to dismiss other white, male, or childless people because 'They can find another job easier, and it's not as though they have a family to support.' When I needed to fire someone who was literally sleeping at their desk and often playing computer solitaire instead of working, I was told by my boss I was prohibited from dismissing them... Why? 'Because we need to maintain a 50% minority quota, and besides, that person has several children to support...'"

All of the above would be less upsetting if the childfree were subsidized as much as those who chose to have children, and were given equivalent perks in taxation and in the workplace. People shouldn't be bribed to create more consuming polluters, and compensation should be based on qualifications and job performance, not on the number of children one has produced.

All of the above turn parents into a privileged class of employee and citizen.

I didn't force them to have children, so why should I be forced to pay for them?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Nature's Plan?

Dear Editor:

In the article "Women suffer more stress than men, study claims" (August 5), it is pointed out that working mothers with young children reported the highest stress levels, with the lowest being reported by childfree women.

In Maclean's Magazine (August 9), the question posed by the cover story "Sex & Marriage: Can passion survive kids, careers and the vagaries of aging?" can best be answered, "No. Yes. Yes."

I learned from reading both articles that kids usually kill the sex drive, and only after they have all left home does it stand a chance of resurrecting.

Over the past fifteen years, I have spoken with many members of NO KIDDING! -- a social club for childfree couples and singles -- and I have learned that NOT having children keeps the drive alive.

I guess it could be summed up as: kids = stress; stress = less sex; less sex = fewer kids.

Could that be nature's birth control plan?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

The Cost of Kids

Dear Editor:

Give me a break!  All these middle-class parents are complaining (Canadians trapped in child care juggling act, August 16) how expensive it is to raise children, and they "want child-care choices."  They had a choice -- to have fewer kids or no kids at all.  They made their choice, and now they're upset with how much money their choice is costing them.

It shouldn't have come as a surprise to them that having children is expensive; what with each child using 5,000 to 8,000 diapers (at a cost of $2,000 to $3,200), clothes that need replacing all the time, medications for the endless string of ailments that kids get, food, toys, babysitting fees, daycare, school supplies, sports equipment and fees, and allowance.  Didn't they know that it costs an average of $200,000 to raise a kid from birth to eighteen years of age?  Didn't they think to ask?  Didn't somebody tell them?  Didn't they do their homework?

They can already write off babysitting, summer camp and daycare costs, but now they want you and me to pay for their daycare, so that they can drop the kids off to strangers in the morning and pick them up in the evening, while they make more money so they can have a newer second car, or another trip to Hawaii.

It appears that they want it all, but they want you and me to pay for it.

No thanks.

And they call childfree people "selfish"!

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Changing the weather

Dear Editor:

Who says you can't change the weather?  It's easy.  Just do something that will cause thousands of trees to disappear from the face of the earth forever.   Do something that will eliminate all the fish from the rivers, lakes and oceans.    Do something that will add massive quantities of pollutants to our air.   Do something that will require diversion of major rivers.  Do something that will contribute to the depletion  of the ozone layer.  Do something that will pour large amounts of pollutants into our water and will raise the temperature of that water.   Do something that will contribute to raising the temperature of enormous tracts of land.  Do something that will cause depletion of the nutrients in the earth so that topsoil and dead crops blow away in the wind.  Do something that will deplete our aquifers.  Do something that will add mountains of garbage to our landfills that leach poisons into the earth, the surface water, and the diminishing underground water.

Yeah, it's easy to change the weather -- just have a baby.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Inter-planetary E-mail?

Dear Editor:

I knew e-mail was international, but I didn't realize that it was intergalactic.   I was astonished to receive the following e-mail from a distant planet:

Way to go, Earthlings! We just heard that you now have more than 6,000,000,000 (yes, that's six billion) human beings living on your wee planet -- bad news travels fast.

Are you beings crazy? You keep making new humans, even though you can't care for the ones that already inhabit Earth -- education, housing, employment, food and health care are totally inadequate. 

Your miniscule planet is so crowded that many of your beings are forced to live in areas that are dangerous and/or can not sustain life, such as earthquake zones, floodplains, tornado zones, drought-prone areas, typhoon zones, disease-laden areas, coastal cities that are at or below sea level, right next to airports, volcanoes and contaminated industrial lands, hillsides that you shave of trees causing landslides, etc. 

Do the folks who have offspring have the gall to complain about traffic jams, overcrowding, the high cost of housing and other services and products, or air, water, land, noise and  light pollution? 

Your landfills are overflowing with garbage; you even have to transport your garbage long distances to dump it in less crowded regions.

Instead of using birth control, you seem to prefer life control -- through the use of tobacco, alcohol, numerous other drugs, homicide, suicide, accidents, wars, and various lethal diseases.   You are poisoning your water, your air, and your land. There are insufficient resources (water, food, trees, fish, electricity, etc.) for the number of humans you already have, yet you continue to produce even more consumers -- and in record numbers. How intelligent is that?

Unfortunately, your birth rate is not matched by your death rate, and your numbers keep increasing in leaps and bounds. You produce -- net -- three new mouths to feed each and every second. Haven't you learned how to amuse yourselves without procreating? According to your World Bank, every hour of every day, you add 10,000 babies to your planet, you clear 4,000 acres of forest, and you eliminate 3 species of plant or animal life. Your population has doubled (from 3 billion to 6 billion) in less than 40 years.

If the current growth rate continues, it will double again (from 6 billion to 12 billion) by your year 2050. Where in the world (pun intended) will you put 12 billion people? How on earth (pun intended again) will you feed them?  Your moon is only one-sixth the size of Earth. How many humans do you think could exist on that tiny orb? And for how long? Your moon doesn't even have any water, and we understand that you need water to survive.

You are wiser with, and kinder to, your pets by spaying and neutering them, instead of euthanizing unwanted litters. Why can't you apply the same caring and logic to yourselves?

I truly hope you find a solution to your burgeoning population before it's too late for everyone on your tiny, overcrowded, polluted planet.

Sincerely,

Yrrej Grebniets

On the planet Notlimah

In the galaxy Oiratno

yrrejgrebniets@notlimahnet.net

What can we learn from Yrrej's e-mail?

 Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Who should pay?

Dear Editor:

I don't get it.  People choose to have children, then they expect me to help them raise and pay for those children.  The National Council of Women of Canada wants free daycare so that mothers can run for office (Ottawa urged to provide free child care for candidates, November 23).  When asked if she had ever run for office, the vice-president of the organization replied, "Regretfully, I have not, for two reasons: Six children, and I had a husband who did not support me."  Duh!     I'll bet there are many things six children and an unsupportive husband prevented her from doing.

Why can't people accept the fact that life is full of choices, and that we have to live with the consequences of the choices we make?  If you choose to have a child or a barnfull of kids, you may find that it limits what you may accomplish in life.  And some people have the gall to call childfree people "selfish"!

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Too many people

Dear Editor:

Every man, woman and child in the world should read Stephen Hume's eye-opening article "Too many people" in the February 23rd Vancouver Sun.  I implore you to put it on the Internet.

As a result of lowered infant mortality rates and increased longevity, each person who produces, say, just three offspring -- if each of them follows their parents' example -- will be sharing our roads (not to mention resources, food, space, etc.) with thirty-nine (39) descendents until he or she dies.

To extrapolate a bit, if you have three children, and each of them has three children, and so on, you will be responsible for creating, directly or indirectly, two hundred forty-three (243) other people in just one hundred years.  To determine how many people you can contribute to the overpopulation problem, keep multiplying the above numbers by three (3, 9, 27, 81, 243, 729, 2187, etc.).  And keep in mind that each and every baby will use 5,000 to 8,000 diapers, and will grow up to consume and pollute just like everyone else.

Mr. Hume's observation really drives the point home:  "It took 250 million years for our numbers to reach three billion in 1960.  We've doubled that in the last 40 years."  Just think what we could accomplish if we really tried!

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Violence is OK, but no sex please!

Dear Editor:

What are some parents thinking?  A number of people took their kids to see a televised World Wrestling Federation match and, as a result of a switching error, thirty seconds of porn appeared on the screen when the wrestling was over (Refunds offered after errant sex scene airs, February 29).  Many of those parents are upset that their kids were exposed to thirty seconds of oral sex, and are demanding complete refunds.

Those same kids had just been subjected to a couple of hours of watching a bunch of steroid-loaded goons trying to (or at least appearing to try to) kill each other, but that was no problem for the parents.

These parents seem to believe that their kids should accept violence as a way of life, but two people giving each other pleasure is disgusting.

I don't get it.  I guess it's a good thing that I don't have kids.  I'm liable to poison their minds into thinking that loving is preferable to violence.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Catholic apologies

Dear Editor:

I'm pleased that Pope John Paul II has apologized for all the wrongs that the Catholic Church has inflicted on Jews, women, and minorities over the centuries (Pope issues apologies for past wrongs, March 13).  It's about time!

I hope this means that the Catholic Church will now allow women to have as many children as they want and can afford.  Or are they still going to be forced to have as many as their bodies can endure?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Y2K Babies

Dear Editor:

Stop the insanity!  I can't think of anything more irresponsible, selfish, and immature!

How could anyone create a human being for a lark?  That's what's happening around the world in preparation for the year 2000 (Timing is everything for Y2Kid: Couples at the bedpost in race for 2000 baby, April 6).

People should put more consideration into having a child than they do into the purchase of a pair of shoes, but it seems that many folks are ready to jump into bed nine months before January 1, 2000 without any forethought whatsoever.

They may not be ready to be parents.  They may not be able to afford a child.     They may not have what it takes to be good parents.  They might not even like kids.  But they're all ready to try to be the one who will have the first baby of the year 2000.

If this trend becomes popular, we're going to end up with a baby boom that produces a very large number of unplanned, unwanted, unloved babies.

Children are too precious to be created on a whim.  This baby boom is going to cause overcrowding of hospital maternity wards, of elementary schools five years later, of high schools thirteen years later, increased unemployment, increased pollution, etc.

I also can't think of a worse time to be rushing to the hospital than on January 1, 2000.    If any of the Y2K dilemmas materialize, it's going to be absolute chaos on the roads and in the hospitals on or around that momentous date.

If you want to do something frivolous for New Year's, buy a pair of shoes without even trying them on!

The irony of it all is that they'll be having their "millennium babies" a year too early.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Subsidizing parenthood

Dear Editor:

This notion of heavily subsidizing daycare so that parents can hand their kids over to strangers to raise is ridiculous and aggravating (B.C. child care plan coming at 'huge cost,' March 16).  We are already paying the highest taxes in the world in order to give huge subsidies to people to make babies and raise them -- through "free" pre-natal care, "free" hospital expenses, "free" post-natal care, "free" education from kindergarten to grade twelve, highly subsidized college and university courses, and child tax credits.

One thing supporters of such an idea are forgetting is that parenthood is optional; it is just one of many choices available to us.  If we're going to subsidize people who make that choice, why not pay those who choose other options, as well?  I'd love to receive your tax dollars to help me get more toys for my dogs, buy a new car, or go on lavish trips.

If you can't afford to have children, don't have them.  I find one career enough for me; why do some people need two?

Given the overcrowding in our cities and the world overpopulation problem, we should be paying people not to have children, instead of bribing them (with my tax dollars and yours) to make more consuming polluters.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Reducing the abortion rate

Dear Editor:

It's no wonder that the abortion rate is up (Canada's abortion rate climbs to 33 per 100 births, April 8).  With the federal Liberals withdrawing funds from the provinces (so they can boast of a budget surplus), and provinces removing funding from social service and health agencies, many more women no longer have access to safe, reliable birth control.

For many people, an unintended pregnancy is much like a disease, only worse -- at least with a disease, it either gets cured, or you die.  Either way, you're rid of it.    An unwanted pregnancy, however, if carried to term, will live with you for the next 18 years or more, and could be an unbearable burden for the rest of your life -- especially if the unwanted, unloved result of that pregnancy turns to a life of crime.

An unwanted pregnancy can preclude one's educational goals, end career aspirations, cancel travel and recreational dreams, and destroy one's financial well-being.

Every child born -- ideally -- should be wanted, planned, and loved.

Sure, we can teach abstinence, but, unfortunately, it will have less of an effect on curious, supposedly-invincible teens than teaching them about the multitude of diseases caused by smoking.

The best antidote for abortion is honest and accurate sex education and affordable, reliable, safe and accessible contraception for everyone.

The question becomes, "Which political party will be able to reduce the abortion rate?"

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

A family or a village?

Dear Editor:

Pete McMartin's piece on Marie-Ange Boivin (May 25) was very thought-provoking.

Ms. Boivin had 17 children.  Her children gave her 123 grandchildren, who produced 243 great-grandchildren, who rendered another 96 great-great-grandchildren.   In other words, Ms. Boivin's reproductive endeavors resulted in her sharing our roads and competing for food and shelter with 479 other consuming polluters of her own making.  Fewer than half of them attended her funeral.

She (and many of her descendants) didn't "go forth and multiply," they went forth and exponentiated.

She didn't make a family, she produced a village -- a village that in a few more generations will be a city!

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

If you can't afford it...

Dear Editor:

Would you take an around-the-world trip or buy a very expensive house you couldn't afford?

Would you get a dog and take it to someone else to feed, train, groom, play with, cuddle and care for?

And if you took that trip, bought that house, or got that dog, would you be justified in expecting -- or demanding -- that others subsidize your choice?

Why do so many people have kids, hand them over to strangers to raise, and then demand that you and I pay those strangers to raise them?

Parenthood doesn't begin at conception and end at delivery. Hey folks, if you can't afford kids and don't want to raise them yourself, don't have any.

The NDP's plan to provide subsidized (eventually "free") day care to every parent in the province (Phase 1 of universal day care to save some B.C. parents $5 a day, June 6) is just an underhanded attempt to buy votes for the next election, and to saddle the next government with a program it won't be able to afford.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Free lunch?

Dear Editor:

Are you tired of hearing people say, "I've got three kids, and even though I work three jobs, I can't make ends meet."?

I sure am.

Did someone force these folks to have kids?  Or were they all accidents?

Didn't someone tell them that kids would cost a lot to raise?  After all, four rolls of toilet paper, for example, cost four times as much as one does.

I am tired of the government dipping into my pocket again and again to subsidize people's choice to have children.  Free universal daycare.  One year of parental leave paid by Employment Insurance (I always thought that E.I. benefits were for people who had lost their job and were ready, willing and able to return to work immediately).     Onsite daycare.  Tax deductions -- did you know that babysitting, daycare, summer & day camp, and sports school expenses are all tax deductible?

Almost every aspect of parenthood is subsidized:  "kids fly free"; "kids stay free"; "kids eat free"; children's admission fees (to movies, transit, plays, airlines, Science World, etc.) are a fraction of an adult's fee, yet they take up the same seat that a full-fee-paying adult would.  And who pays those subsidies?  You and I do -- whether we have children or not.

If we are going to subsidize people's choices, I'd like to start receiving checks to offset the cost of MY lifestyle choices.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

People = Pollution

Dear Editor:

We are hearing about more and more cases of water contamination due to E. coli, coliform, crypto-sporidium and giardia.  Why?  Is it because there is a limit to the amount of pollution even our vast lakes and rivers can accommodate before the level of poisons becomes toxic to fish and other living organisms (such as you and me)?

If you think it's bad now, check back in 30 years after the population of the area has doubled again.  If four million flushers make us sick now, what will eight million do?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Your contribution to the problem

Dear Editor:

Chances are, you were stuck in traffic recently.  Well, picture yourself caught in traffic again.  While going nowhere, you look around at the other cars near you.    You notice your son in one car, your granddaughter in another, your great-grandson in yet another, and so on.

If you have kids, you have no right to complain about air pollution, water pollution or traffic congestion.  You are producing the "lock" in "gridlock."

If you had only two children, and they followed your example, you could be sharing the road with fourteen other people that you helped create; three kids, and you're competing with 39 other relatives for space; four could produce 84 descendents in your lifetime; and with five kids, you're adding 155 humans to the planet's population while you're still here.

Do the math, folks!

God may have said, "Be fruitful and multiply," when the population of the planet was two, but She certainly did not say, "Be fruitful and exponentiate!"

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Commuting

Dear Editor:

Remember when your commute used to take half the time that it does now, even though the distance hasn't changed? Ever wonder why? Do you think it might have something to do with the number of vehicles on the road today, as compared with a few years ago?

What causes more vehicles?  More people.

And you know what causes more people, don't you?

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Is one child cruel?

Dear Editor:

So, one of the migrants from China has been granted refugee status because she disagrees with China's one-child policy (Fujian female refugee can stay, board says, November 26).    Make room, everybody, 'cause there are at least one billion people in China who would like to have a few more kids.

At first glance, China's one-child policy may seem a bit severe, but consider the alternative.

Which is worse, couples allowed to have one child and having enough food, etc. for that child, or couples having three, four or ten kids -- all of whom are ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, ill-cared-for, and just plain ill?  And which is worse for the environment, six billion consuming polluters or twelve billion polluting consumers?

And let's not forget that most of those children will have children, who will have children, who will...

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Solving or exacerbating the problem?

Dear Editor:

So far, two responses to my letter of Sep. 8 have been printed in this paper.   I feel that they deserve a reply.

Angela Miles-Syme (Sep. 11) says that my opinion is "sad and ridiculous."     First of all, it isn't MY opinion.  It is the observation and conclusion of almost every environmental scientist and scientific environmentalist in the world that burgeoning population (now at 6 billion!) is the greatest threat to the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat, not to mention its effect on climate and weather incidents (such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, landslides, etc.).  I am not condemning anyone for having had children, I'm simply saying that to do so in the future is to add to future environmental problems.  Much as someone who smoked around others thirty years ago -- they simply didn't know any better.  Someone who does so now is guilty of cavalier disregard for the health and well-being of others, now that the harmful effects of second-hand smoke are well known and documented.

As for Sande Macleod's shortsightedness (Sep. 15), can she not see that 6 billion polluters will have a greater impact on the planet than did 5 billion polluters?     Your neighbors with double the number of residents than live in your home probably have double (or more) the garbage every week.  If you add to the population of the planet, you are adding to the present and future environmental degradation of our planet.

Regarding my dogs:  I didn't cause them to be born.  I adopted living beings and saved them from probable starvation.  And yes, my dogs do defecate, but two dogs produce a lot less feces than 10 dogs.  I have taken steps to ensure that my dogs can not produce more dogs.  Regardless, dogs do not use any diapers, much less 5,000 to 8,000.

While I do consume and pollute (even though I take every possible step to reduce both -- walk, cycle, transit, repair instead of replace, etc.) just by existing (as does every other human being on Earth), what Ms. Macleod fails to recognize or acknowledge is that I have not exponentiated the consumption and pollution by creating future consuming polluters who would, in all probability, produce even more polluting consumers.  Ms. Macleod suggests that one of Ms. Rink's  children might "go on to find a cure for a disease, or find a way to feed the planet, or to bring peace to a war-torn country."  We can only hope, Ms. Macleod, but what's to guarantee that they will not  end up in the core of a major city begging, stealing or turning tricks for their next fix?  I'm sure many beggars', thieves', and hookers' parents had big dreams for their kids, too.

If Ms. Macleod's parents had similar aspirations for their offspring, they must be severely disappointed, as she has not yet performed any of the above miracles.

You can't solve a problem by adding to it.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Who is responsible?

Dear Editor:

Apparently, many people who have kids feel that employers or the rest of society should assume the responsibility of providing care for those children.  I don't believe that it is other people's responsibility at all.

After all, I know of no one who FORCES others to have children.  The responsibility for the care of those children falls on those who CHOSE to have them.

If I force you to buy a dog, then I would be responsible for that dog if you proved incapable of caring for it.  However, if you took it upon yourself to buy a dog, and found that it was too expensive or too time-consuming to care for that dog, would you think that you have the right to demand that I contribute financially for, or assume guardianship of, that dog?  I think not.

If I choose to blow all my money at a casino or on around-the-world trips, do I have the right to demand that you help me pay for my mortgage or other living expenses?   Not likely.

People can choose whether or not to have children, and if so, how many children they are going to have.

They must assume responsibility for the choices they make.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Do the math!

Dear Editor:

Allow me to extinguish S. Macleod's two "burning questions" regarding overpopulation.

My parents contributed three children to the overpopulation problem.  In their defence, however, they did it fifty years ago, long before the population of the planet reached six billion.  In fact, the population of Earth reached 1 billion in 1804, 3 billion in 1960 (156 years later), and 6 billion in 1999 (in just 39 years).

Scientist/environmentalist David Suzuki's four children are indeed part of the problem of overpopulation -- especially if they duplicate their parents' duplication.   If Dr. Suzuki started making babies early enough in his life, and if his successors replicate his replication, he could be sharing the road with 84 drivers that he helped produce.  Dr. Suzuki, however, is doing much more than most people to try to mitigate his contribution to the problem by educating people about the problem.

Do the math:  Each person who has two children is helping to double the population of the planet.  Three kids triples it, and so on.

If you think six billion people use up a lot of our resources, cause a lot of traffic congestion, and produce a lot of pollution, just wait till you see how many resources can be consumed, how much traffic can be generated, and how much pollution can be created by twelve billion.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

The End

Contact your local chapter: http://members.shaw.ca/nokiddingchapterone/06.htm

Contact Chapter One: info@nokidding.net

Contact our media spokespeople: spokespeople@nokidding.net

(26 April 2007)