Should environmentalists have fewer children?

Answer 1

Probably, but I am more interested in making sure celebrities don't have any children.

Answer 2

No. People who are unable to raise kids should have fewer. In the extreme case, if environmentalists have no kids, there likely would be no environmentalists.

That "logic" is along the lines of when Rush says "if you think the national debt is too high, give more of your money to the government."

Answer 3

Fewer is a relative term.

Replacement value is 2 children per 2 parents.

Answer 4

95% of environmentalists should have fewer to no children.

95% of the global population should have fewer to no children.

Answer 5

This is funny to me. I am not sure that limiting it only to environmentalists would be enough to make a change in the overall scheme of things.

Answer 6

Depends. Some should have more children to teach their children their good ways, so as to have a new generation with people thinking in an environmentally friendly way. Some should focus more on teaching others to live greener lives, and not focus on raising children.

Answer 7

Fewer than what, trees? Yes, they should have fewer children than trees.

Answer 8

Yes, then we could torch the planet without all the fuss and bother.

P.S. I wrote my rough draft on styrofoam, in spray paint, while letting me SUV idle in the driveway.

Answer 9

Yes as the4 birth rate is one of the main problems and will get worse.

Answer 10

No because that would be too inconvenient. They only get upset and active on issues that dont really effect their lifestyle and that they can just blame the government for.