Should doctors advise people to limit the number of children they have for the sake of the environment? (Poll Closed)

If doctors want to stop global warming they should give up medicine and take up politics. Our job is to treat patients, not to save the planet.

It is EVERYONE's responsibility to act on the environmental crisis NOW (in every way we can and see fit). If we leave it up to the politicians all hope is lost, as they are in the pocket of businesses. I see global population growth as a very real crisis and threat to the continued survival of our species (and almost more importantly...to all other species).

I've just come back from my elective in India and the over population and environmental destruction is terrible. Large chunks of the country are just used as a rubbish tip. Every river is full of domestic and industrial waste, every city is burdened with traffic and smog. With rising fuel and food prices as well as a projected world population of 10 billion in the next 40 years something has to be done, the consequences of inaction will be famine, drought, disease and eventually warfare. So if we are in the business of saving lives then surely tackling overpopulation is one way to do this.

I agree with Paul Bailey

Yeah totally - because the one-child policy in China is so stringently enforced and does so much to reduce the country's carbon footprint and emissions. With prolific industrial growth and strong industrial standing in a few big countries, global warming is a more immediate crisis than advising fewer children per woman could ever resolve. Getting US, China and India to sign Kyoto and stick to it is the best shot. I don't belive kidding oneself with carbon-credit babies is going to impact on emissions unless base line emissions are actually reduced.

medicine has advanced far from treating patients to much o screening and prevention. One of the best ways of prevention is to keep a good environment If small family size is one way what is wrong in limiting the family size

I don't see the logic connection between less people and a better environment. I'd say that if there's a connection it is the reverse; the more people, the greater the environment. Look at a hundred years ago and conlude if we were better off then than now with 5 times the population of then. Don't forget that more people, means a bigger global division of labor and thus lots and lots of more minds who can work out ways to better our environment if they are free to keep what they have earned by doing so (a free market is a conditio sine qua non for a sustainable population growth). By bettering our environment through new production techniques these minds make it possible for all those extra souls to survive while not leaving a giant mark on the environment. I'll give some examples of inventions that made possoble a large populaton increase without destroying the environment for others: a waterpump, sewerage, machines and chemicals to increase agricultural production, smokefilters, ...

IF humanity faces an environmental catastrophe then it is vital that humans with the best pool of genes (I hope my children do have these) will survive. The evolutionary imperative is for the best genes to survive. Evolution will take care of the rest. If you do not have children thats fine by me. More future resources for my children. People who do not have children in order to save the environment are putting the cart before the horse. Preserving the future for the children of others.No problem.

i strongly agree with Paul Bailey.

I think that, perhaps, such advice wouldn't go amiss. It wouldn't make a huge difference, as we still have America, China and India to create more pollution, but it'd be a start, at least. Though, having a One-Child-Policy like China does would, quite frankly, be taking it too far. That removed one problem and created more - including the child traffickers that kidnap children and sell them to richer families. It is usually the poorest that suffer most in this case. However, I would like also to point out that Basil Hartzoulakis's viewpoint is, though logical, flawed in regards to humanity as it stands. Evolution is the process by which, over thousands of years, a creature adapts and changes to suit its environment. Mankind adapts and changes its environment to suit itself. We try to change nature. And that, in the end, is what has caused our environmental crisis. I find that rather ironic.