It doesn't matter: We know this isn't something that the world is going to do. This isn't really something viable and for most of history, has been something necessary for survival. Not only that, but it would seem better to get the overall birth rate down since the goal of no more children isn't really something to look forward to (though it should be a viable choice). It really is better to look at the other options that provide more reasonable solutions.

We aren't really in danger of the population dying out, but we do have a need to balance out population and get health care (including birth control and other family planning) around the globe. For this, we need generous immigration policies and folks willing to redistribute money or otherwise spread these things.

I don't know if that works for reducing your carbon footprint. Children don't add to your personal carbon footprint. They're individuals on their own.

You'd never consider yourself to be part of your parents carbon footprint, in need of "reduction", would you?

In a global sense, sure less population means less carbon footprint, but that isn't the end-goal of civilization. To me, the end goal of civilization is life---human life in all its myriad ways, and to its utmost fulfilment. An earth without humans is a poorer earth.

True, but taking your argument to it's logical extreme suicide would work even better.

Probably true.

But that does not rule out other methods of reduction as well.

A vegan having no children has a smaller footprint than a carbivore having no children.

As humans we have reached a point where if we collectively decided to have fewer kids, whole social fabrics will collapse.

Everyone's social security hinges of having just as many people contributing to it today. China had to rid it's one child policy, and Japan is facing a similar problem. How do you support twice as many old people with only half as many working young folk.

I'm migration may be the answer, but if the rise of "nationalist" movements around the world is any indication. Then natives don't quite want immigrants to be that solution.

This is a naive, short-sighted analysis. It makes sense at the level of a singe individual or couple, but, unfortunately, the world is filled with other people. It may be unintuitive, but if you have an environmentalist bent, having more children is a better strategy than having less. I've expanded on this idea if anybody is interested:

http://www.richardjones.org/kids-are-good-for-the-environmen...

Let's say we'd compare the carbon foot print of an average 10-kids Yemenite family with an average single guy with no kids living in Los Angeles. I'm not sure if the single guy would have a lower foot print.

Put it another way, if the poorest half of world population suddenly disappeared, would it solve the problem? I could be wrong but I doubt it.

My understanding is that what matters is not so much how many we are, but what the richest do.

If you want to defend something, in this case the environment, you need people to defend it, against those who want to exploit it to the max.

Yes, I think this should truly be part of the conversation. For some reason, people avoid it.

People are a resource, not a cost. Norman Borlaug saved one billion lives through improving agriculture. How many people like that would remain unborn?

I don't particularly care about the planet, but I agree with you. What irks me more is that there is an element of consent involved with birth. Life is mostly suffering and struggle for the majority, and it is a mean thing to bring someone into existence and have them deal with the meaninglessness and misery that is existence, all by themselves so.

And what happens when they can't cope, or they don't follow the rules, or they simply want to exercise their freedom to cease to exist? We end up blaming them.

It's all very absurd.