Question by Larry T: Which is better for the environment…?
…installing a solar hot water system or not having a baby? On the radio someone was saying, “if you don’t shave in the shower you could save around 100 liters of water”. It got me thinking. Imagine how much water you could save if you don’t reproduce? And that’s just water. What about jet fuel, and plastics, and paper, and trees, chemicals animals that will have to be slaughtered and land that will have to be cleared etc etc. There’s 7 billion of us now and each day our numbers grow by almost a quarter of a million greenhouse-gas-producing humans. Maybe conservation is not really the answer maybe it’s more about family planning, awareness and helping the hundred of millions around the world who would like to have sex but don’t necessarily want to conceive.

Best answer:

Answer by Periscope
Not having a baby.

In my APES class, we were taking about ways to cut population growth in half (because our natural resources are being rapidly depleted and we are running our of places to put trash, etc.) and reducing the total fertility rate (or the number of children a woman conceives in her lifetime) is basically the number one way to do that. Empowering women, creating less of a need for children in the workforce, and the availability of family planning, education and contraceptives will all help reduce our population growth.

PLUS, the average American child costs $ 250,000 to raise (care for until the age of 18). That’s less money than a solar water heating system, right? Plus, by relying on the sun’s energy, you are reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses your household is producing.

Add your own answer in the comments!