I would love to make less of a negative impact on the environment. I would love to consume less, drive less, work from home, grow my own food etc.
I tried to watch this film, but couldn't help wondering if the biggest impact I could ever make is in NOT having a child (and grandchild, great grandchild etc). Doesn't that single act of my not having a child make a greater net positive eco impact than this family will ever make?
You are correct. having 1 kid, vil increase your carbon footprint ALOT. It would be more envorimental friendly to live "normal" and not have anys kids, than it is to have a 1 kid and live as a "no impact man" for the rest of your life.
I stumbled across this film and was about to start a thread on the very same topic. The poster of 'no impact man' and his wife swinging their child immediately made me think "I'm making less of a detrimental environmental impact than 'no impact man' because I have no intention of having a child".
Admittedly, there are people in the undeveloped/developing world who make less of an environmental impact than me (after all I'm using a laptop as I type this), but as far as the West goes, I don't drive, I don't fly, I don't eat meat, I don't eat dairy products, I don't smoke, I don't have any children, I don't own any property (I don't have any fun). So surely I'm more of a 'no impact man' than the guy who made this doc.
Then again, even though I try to do my bit for the world at large by sacrificing, life is meant to be for living, otherwise what's the point of us being here? I wouldn't wish my restricted, abstinent, miserable (but, hey, environmentally- friendly ) life on anyone else. I may be doing the world good but I've done bugger all for myself.