Environmentally great for who? Or for what? For non-human life? Probably. For humans? It depends. It certainly isn’t so great for your hypothetical children.
I mean, I’m glad that in your eyes you’re sacrificing your children so that mine have a better environmental future, but I’m certainly not doing the reverse.
What about women? When a woman decides never to have children, or becomes voluntarily sterile?
The greatest environmental disaster, by far, is too many people.
By not creating any more, you are decreasing the environmental burden by whatever resources your children would have consumed, or whatever waste they would have generated.
It’s likely that someone else will step up and create children, but you can only be responsible for not creating any yourself. And to that extent, I can’t think of a greater contribution.
If you want the Hummer, I suggest not having as many as 5 children, instead of not having only one. I myself have not had over a dozen children so that I can support my personal excess consumption.
I had a college sweetheart who was sure he didn’t want kids, because it was just a burden on the world and the environment. Other than kinda hippy-ish leanings, he was <and I’m sure he still is> a very bright, intelligent, humorous, caring and wonderful guy. I wish that I’d had the comeback THEN that I have NOW, but I’m still not sure how to word it.
But it’s something along the lines of “Removing yourself from the future genetic pool just tilts the percentages towards the stupid people.”.
Of course, I’d want to be a little more PC than THAT, but yeah. That’s the gist.
That is an excellent point. Also, I will amass a large, well paid harem, and they will not be allowed to procreate, under of losing a great deal of money. If I have, say, 50 wives, none of whom have kids, I will likely spare the world more than a hundred kids.
Now all I need is a great deal of money to pay my harem and buy my Hummer. Still, the conceptual part – always the most difficult – is done.
I totally believe that this is happening in society. I seriously believe that humanity will just end up getting stupider and stupider until we kill ourselves with our own stupidity.
Piker - I have not had over a hundred children so I can make up for living in Canada. 
In a discussion like this, you should probably note that:
[quote]
Each person in the industrialized world uses as much commercial energy as 10 people in the developing world. (source: Paul Ehrlich and the Population Bomb) Each baby North American is born to consume much more than a baby born elsewhere.
Nonsense! Your female junk will wear out after no more than 20 to 30 births. As a male sperm donor, I can conceivably conceive millions upon millions of little Boyos should I implant them in enough women.
That’s going to make a larger difference. By the biological nature of things, wombs are in much scarcer supply than sperm.
This is precisely the argument my husband uses for being a meat eater - that having 7 billion meat eaters on the earth would be less taxing to the environment than 14 billion vegetarians.
You are correct. Just look at who is having most children.
In advanced societies like Singapore, the government is so worried that intelligent people are not having children that it is trying to get them to breed!
It has always been known that as a population becomes more educated the birth rate drops, so theoretically, to save the planet as we know it, it is just necessary to educate all 6 billion+ of us. Unfortunately, fat chance of that happening.
To really help the environment, you should be removing children from first-world countries and transporting them to third-world countries.
Funny how this thread is moving in several directions, some of them in opposing directions. For example, several posts are disturbingly eugenicist (one by lavenderviolet I was sure had to be tongue-in-cheek, but apparently isn’t), and operate on the assumption that “rich, educated Westerners (who tend to have relatively few children) are ‘more intelligent’ than other people.” Meanwhile, other posters are declaring (with rather more evidence in their favor) that “rich people – meaning, educated Westerners and those that are recently achieving similar lifestyles – are disproportionately damaging to the environment” – in other words, in a sense, they’re the “stupid” ones.
Well, assuming they have no ambitions and are willing to live crappy.
But unfortunately most of the third world has ambitions to live as large as first-worlders, and so most of the growth in CO2 output, resource consumption and the like is going to be driven by those burgeoning populations as they try desperately to catch up to our profligacy.
We could help this a little bit by stamping out immigration, which is the obvious corollary to your suggestion. I checked, though, and this turns out to be somewhat controversial. The apparent (ridiculous?) notion is that all humans should be permitted to live as well as possible.
even though they look different, the core of both mindsets is “everyone but me is stupid.”
Well put, IMHO.
I suggest a high-consumption lifestyle may be narcissistic, but it’s completely unrelated to intelligence.
I’ll leave the question of average intelligence by nation or group (political, economic or biological) to GD.