Yeah, seems to be the new acronym.

Anyone sort of apply this description to themselves? Thoughts?

I sorta used to be mega pro-environment but then I thought, ‘hang on a minute! I’m not having kids, so why should I care about the future?’

Should parents be more environmentally concerned than those that aren’t breeders?

In answer to the last question, yes.

I’ve heard the argument that overpopulation is hugely damaging (makes sense) so choosing not to sprog is a green choice. I retort that the balance of careless breeders needs to be stabilised by considerate parents.

“‘hang on a minute! I’m not having kids, so why should I care about the future?'” Is a little self centred, we don’t just attempt to maintain the environment for people! I feel a less human-centric approach is needed, we’re one part of a huge ecosystem.

It’s naturally selfish for parents to want a good things for their kids, but the end is positive. We should be aiming for sustainability in a much longer term than the next 100 years. Ironically, short term ‘green thinking’ isn’t sustainable!

I’ll raise a shy hand and admit to being one. Every time I think of not caring about the planet all my nieces and nephews spring to mind. The next thing that springs to mind is that being green is usually cheaper, healthier, safer, more socially acceptable etc etc.

Unless you live in a yurt, weave your own clothes from grass, grow all your own food, don’t poo/piss, have no electric items of any description etc etc, then I’d argue that it makes next to no difference if you have kids or not.

If you’re a human being, living in the western world (mostly), you are not and never will be “green”.

I wouldn’t say we’re green, just sensible.

I suppose it comes down to what story you accept.

If you think the state of the environment is unrelated to the presence of humans (Jeremy Clarkson unfortunately seems amongst the most vociferous of that camp, which never helps) then you’re going to think having kids makes no difference to the planet.

If you think humans have had a large and detrimental effect on the state of the environment, then logic dictates you’re going to think having kids damages the environment.

Personally I’m of the belief that with far fewer humans the world would be a better place, and this is reflected in my desire to not have children. But I wouldn’t use this as a reason to suggest my friends stop breeding. I’d instead suggest the annoyance of their annoying brats stopping them from riding their bikes is why they should stop breeding.

The only time the sprogging of my friends would annoy me is if I was to be lectured for driving a 4×4 or using a tumble dryer or flying somewhere sunny or whatever by a family with more than two kids. Because I do believe bringing more human beings into the world than needed to replace yourselves has and will do more damage to the environment than I ever will.

Unless the hoover falls against the tumble dryer dial and stops it from turning off for ages like it did the other week. Driest, hottest pants ever.

I’d instead suggest the annoyance of their annoying brats stopping them from riding their bikes is why they should stop breeding.

How well does this go down usually? 🙂

Mild annoyance at best, to be honest.

I’m not sure it’s a green choice in as much as I don’t think people who want children decide against it just to be green. I think people who don’t want to have children anyway present it as a green choice.

nothing to see here…

I think people who don’t want to have children anyway present it as a green choice.

That’s what I do. Same as being a cyclist really – I can claim it’s because I’m green, but actually it’s because I love riding bikes.

But whatever the motives, if the benefit happens to be there as a byproduct of choices you’d make anyway, then I say why not harp on about it like some sort of holier than thou, soapbox dwelling guardian of virtue?

Perhaps there needs to be coined some term for this. Coincidentally Green. I’d be happy to be called that.

My brother and his wife are GINKS and proud of it.

They don’t want kids, a fact they cloak under the GINK rationale: “How could I possibly bring up children into a dying world?” 👿

I know a 2 lots that are GINKS
One of them is so evangelical that I go to my shed when he turns up now, I can’t stand it anymore
The other couple rarely mention it

Neither of the couples are so bothered about over-consuming yet that they chosen to have only one earner in the household though

Bumper-sticker seen in Bourg Saint Maurice last week:

“Save the Planet. Kill yourself.”

Yeah GINK here, no car for 6 years now, woohoo
Couldn’t dream of using it as an excuse for no kids though, I’d love kids.
Overpopulation may be a major problem but who really wants to go first on that.
More western, consumer kids may be an eco problem; more western, conscious kids who don’t repeat the problems of the 20th century may be a good thing.

“Save the Planet. Kill yourself.”

Indeed, I presume that GINKs have an automatic appointment at Dignitas when they reach 70 to prevent them becoming a drain on precious resources

It’s already well-described by the initialism ‘TJ’. 🙂

No kids here (& ambivalent about having ’em, at best).

“Save the Planet. Kill yourself.”
But it is actually more fun and more efficient to kill a 4×4 driving frequent flying over consumer.

GINK until 9 weeks ago now enjoying reusable nappies.

Indeed, I presume that GINKs have an automatic appointment at Dignitas when they reach 70 to prevent them becoming a drain on precious resources

Well we’ll have no kids to care for us, so there needs to be some plan in place. That’s one option.

NSFW:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo[/video]

I can’t throw beer can holdy togethery things away without thinking of Doug Stanhope.

most folks that i know that have kids never actually planned it.
happy family folks included.

If everyone had one or two kids we’d still be ok for population, it’d still fall.

Two for me here, definitely no more – for a few reasons, but population growth is one of them.

We are all a drain on resources, all you can do is minimise them and try and come up with ideas on how to reduce impact. Hopefully I can have two kids who’re brought aware of the issues, and maybe one of them will be the one who perfects nuclear fission or invents the ideal atmospheric scrubber or something.

“How could I possibly bring up children into a dying world?”
Nothing worse than a pessimistic Green, other than perhaps a triumphant over consumer, guiltily enjoying a Bacchanalian orgy of want and waste (Eg Clarkson, Americans). I mean it’s okay to think being green is important, but to carry on, hair-shirted, thinking it’s not going to save the earth? Perverse.

“Save the Planet. Kill yourself.”
But it is actually more fun and more efficient to kill a 4×4 driving frequent flying over consumer.

Careful, I don’t think Stevomcd went to BSM there on a bamboo framed bike…

I’m undecided on kids, not ’cause I fear the sky will be on fire, but because I can’t see them having any fun…

I suppose maybe I am.

No kids, but that’s for other reasons, not saving the planet.

Do other things that are more motivated by environmental / green concerns – cycling to work is one (helps that I genuinely enjoy it, but I would rather now commute as a ‘ride’ than drive into work, then put the bike in the car and drive somewhere to go for a ride), similarly now do more cycle touring / train combo holidays than pack bike and fly somewhere else to ride (again, big motivation is reducing carbon emissions).

So I guess I have ‘green inclinations’ but that isn’t the reason why I have ‘no kids’

Well, I think it’s pretty safe bet that I won’t be having any kids any time soon but I don’t think that has a bearing either way on my green thinking.

To be honest, I’m green in some ways and dreadfully un-green in other ways. I try to keep a reasonable balance and maybe my continued vegetarianism is something to do with that. Apparently, meat is really ‘environmentally expensive’ to produce?

Rachel