Corey Pierce

Forget driving a Hummer, the disposable paper cup, or the big house in the burbs — the most ecologically destructive thing you’ll probably do in your lifetime isn’t any of those things; it’s reproducing. And everybody’s doing it — tree huggers and non-tree huggers alike.

The United Nations predicts the world population will grow from its current 6.8 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. There really isn’t any way around the implications of that — more people on the planet equates to increased consumption of resources and increased production of waste.

If agricultural methods are not improved, water demand will increase by 70 to 90 per cent, according to the UN’s World Water Development Report. Last I heard, fresh water supplies are declining, not increasing to meet demand. The BBC reported in its World Water Crisis series, that one person in five has no access to safe drinking water. It only makes sense that water, food and shelter demands will intensify alongside population growth, not to mention all the extras.

By 2050, I can only imagine how many iterations there’ll be of iPods, televisions, gaming systems, computers and telephones, which makes me wonder: With ever-more consumers, where will all the “old” electronics be dumped?

The population question comes down to this — does the planet have enough capacity for all of us?

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) calls this the Earth’s biocapacity and defines it as the amount of biologically productive area — cropland, pasture, forest and fisheries — that is available to meet humanity’s needs.

Based on the WWF’s calculations, we’ve been overindulging at a rate of 25 per cent since the late 1980s, meaning we’re eating up the Earth’s capital faster than it can be replenished.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the world’s oceans. In 2003, the scientific journal Nature reported that only 10 per cent of all large fish — both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish and marlin, and bottom-feeders such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder — are left in the sea.

It’s all pretty compelling and yet, most people I know are still reproducing — including the most diehard of environmentalists. I guess it’s in our nature.

I can understand personal population control measures might be a little hard to swallow, but I can’t understand why more parents aren’t practising some pretty simple measures to ensure the addition of their offspring isn’t causing undue ecological damage.

Take, for example, disposable diapers. It’s estimated 85 per cent of Canadian parents use them and with 5,000 changes in the first two years of a baby’s life, that amounts to 1.7 billion landfilled diapers in Canada each year. With the availability of diaper services, it’s hard to comprehend why more parents aren’t opting in, unless, of course, they can’t financially afford it.

What most are opting in for is a whole pile of new stuff — cribs, clothes, changing tables, strollers that cost more than my first car, toys, playpens, bottles, car seats, jolly jumpers, books, CDs, high chairs, monitors and more. Considering the brief time many of these items are used, it’s a wonder secondhand hasn’t become first choice.

The majority of new parents don’t seem to be making the not-so-difficult connection between the choices they make today and the implications for their own offspring tomorrow.

It’s a pretty bleak picture, one of the many reasons I’ve decided against having kids. For those who are procreating, though, it’d be nice if a little thought could go into the decision. Think of the birth of a baby as an opportunity to start anew, so that the overpopulated world of tomorrow might be just a little less bleak.