Overview of the Article: Too big for the planet - Essay Example

Too big for the planet? Overview of the Article: The article published in The Guardian of 12th July 2007, d “Too Big for the Planet?” is chosen for analysis in this essay. The Optimum Population Trust, a think tank “dedicated to reducing the population growth and its effects on the world” recommend that families should have no more than two children because any more children would be harmful for the long term well being of the environment (The Guardian, July 12 2007). The think tank argues that apart from practical environmental benefits of smaller families, they also send a symbolic message of social responsibility to the rest of the world and encourage them to follow suit. The issue boils down to balancing the supply and demand ends of “green” consumer products. Author Joanna Moorhead spoke to three large families in the UK and heard their views on this small family proposal. The Russel Fishers are a family of eight – the parents and six children. Jo Fisher, now 51 thinks that the two-child proposal is uncalled for. She reckons that while some of her friends were concerned about the social aspects of having a large family, they never saw any moral deviance associated with it. Moreover, Jo states, that she and her husband have taken complete responsibility for the children’s upbringing. So why should the state have a problem? She also makes a valid observation when she says that “there are plenty of people around who choose to have no children at all, which surely opens the possibility for people like me to choose to have more than two" (The Guardian, July 12 2007). She also honestly admits that mustering the finances for providing quality education and healthy lifestyle for the children can be a challenge. Further, Jo also laments the lack of personal space for her and husband Jamie. But in spite of these inconveniences, the couple emphasize that they derive a “huge sense of enjoyment” from their large family. The children too concurred with their parents’ view. The Corbet family’s views are also quite similar. To their credit, in spite of the burdens of raising five children, the Corbets practice an environmentally friendly lifestyle, as “they grow their own vegetables, they compost their waste, theyre avid freecyclers, most of their clothes are second-hand, and to reduce their carbon footprint they dont drive anywhere on Fridays” (The Guardian, July 12 2007). The Pascal family is the largest among the three, with eight children whose ages range between four and twenty four. Yvonne Pascal asks a pertinent question : How can the authorities know for sure how many children are optimum? She also mentions some of the unique advantages of a large family. She reckons how children of a large family grow up to be responsible citizens as adults. In her words, “theyre all caring kids who are motivated and want to make a difference. The world is a better place for them, for all of them.” (The Guardian, July 12 2007) As with the other parents she acknowledges the inherent challenges posed by large families. The Pascals overcome these challenges by being well-organized. For instance, they adopt a military-like regimen, which changes as children grow up; and all members are assigned roles and responsibilities within the household. More importantly, the children seem to understand and respect the Herculean efforts put in by their parents. Strengths and Weaknesses of arguments: The interviewed families come across as responsible and sensible people, who would probably do more good than harm for the society and environment in which they live. They make some salient observations about the larger consequences of their family size. Their arguments countering the Optimal Population Trust’s suggestion are also logically sound, as the following examples illustrate. The argument forwarded by Jo Fisher that their large family size only compensates for the ever increasing number of no-child or less-than-two-child families is a sound one indeed. As the Corbets family shows, being environmentally conscious has nothing to do with family size, as the Optimum Population report suggests. Angie Corbet makes a valid assessment when she asserts that “the fact that were bringing up five young people who will be productive members of society and will play a part in alleviating problems rather than causing them” (The Guardian, July 12 2007). Through their own high standards of responsible living, the Corbets have shown the frailty of the two-child proposal. In the end, what matters is the personal responsibility these children will take as adults. It does not matter how big or how small their families are. Yvonne Pascal has a point, for her their and sixth children are planning to study medicine, which would mean that they are valuable assets to the future generation. For Yvonne Pascal, the lessons learnt from the enriching experiences in the family life are applicable to her work, making her a better manager and employee. Hence, the arguments made by the seniors in these families come across as very reasonable and strong. Implications of the arguments: Moving on to the implications of the points made in the article, there is no doubt that population is a significant factor in determining the health of our environment in the future. Considering that average life expectancy is on a steady increase, a growing birth rate is problematic. But the Optimum Population Trust overstates the gravity of the situation. It is to be noted that excess population is not synonymous with environmental degradation as there is not definite cause and effect relationship between the two. What is more important is environmental awareness, education and responsibility on part of citizens. If these qualities could be inculcated into them during their formative years, then family sizes would matter little. While it is true that the planet can only provide limited resources for its inhabitants, the two-child limit does not directly boost the prospects of the environment. Work cited: Joanna Moorhead, Too big for the planet?, The Guardian, Thursday July 12 2007, Having more than two children is bad for the environment, a new report says. But are large families really that damaging? Joanna Moorhead asks three of them to make their case, retrieved from Read More