Leave it to a wiseass mother of two to make the best case I’ve ever read for not having kids.

Caitlin Moran is currently having an American media moment as she marks U.S. publication of her book How to Be a Woman, a memoir-slash-manifesto that’s been a massive best-seller in the U.K. She’s been described as the British Tina Fey, the next Nora Ephron, and an occasional Lady Gaga bathroom companion. Everyone’s talking about her fervid defense of feminism. (“Do you have a vagina? and Do you want to be in charge of it? If you said ‘yes’ to both, then congratulations! You’re a feminist.”) But not enough people are talking about her fervid defense of the childfree life — so I’m going to.

Thing is, Moran loves being a mum (in addition to being many other things, like a columnist for The Times of London). She has a sweet and honkingly funny chapter called “Why You Should Have Children.” But she follows that with a whip-smart chapter entitled “Why You Shouldn’t Have Children.” The latter case so rarely gets vocalized, and Moran vocalizes it so damn well, that I want to block-quote the entire chapter. But that would mean a lot of typing for me. So instead I’ll just block-quote a big chunk, and then you’ll have to go buy the book to read the rest. Which you should do anyway.

[I]f a woman should say she doesn’t want to have children at all, the world is apt to go decidedly peculiar: “Ooooh, don’t speak too soon,” it will say — as if knowing whether or not you’re the kind of person who desires to make a whole other human being in your guts, out of sex and food, then base the rest of your life around its welfare, is a breezy, “Hey — whatever” decision. …

[T]his injunction for all women to have children isn’t in any way logical. If you take a moment to consider the state of the world, the thing you notice is that there are plenty of babies being born; the planet really doesn’t need all of us to produce more babies.

Particularly First World babies, with their ferocious consumption of oil and forest and water, and endless burping-out of carbon emissions and landfill. First World babies are eating this planet like termites. If we had any real perspective on fertile Western women, we’d be jumping on them in the streets, screaming, “JESUS! CORK UP YOUR NETHERS! IMMUNIZE YOURSELF AGAINST SPERM!” …

Because it’s not simply that a baby puts a whole person-ful of problems into the world. It takes a useful person out of the world as well. Minimum. Often two. When you have young children, you are useless to the forces of revolution and righteousness for years. Before I had my kids I may have mooched about a lot but I was politically informed, signing petitions, and recycling everything down to watch batteries. It was compost heap here, dinner from scratch there, public transport everywhere. … I was smugly, bustingly, low-level good.

Six weeks into being poleaxed by a newborn colicky baby, however, and I would have happily shot the world’s last panda in the face if it made the baby cry for 60 seconds less. The cloth diapers … were dumped for disposables; we lived on ready meals. Nothing got recycled … Union dues and widow’s mites were cancelled — we needed the money for the disposables and the ready meals. …

Let’s face it, most women will continue to have babies, the planet isn’t going to run out of new people, so it’s of no real use to the world for you to have a child. Quite the opposite, in fact. That shouldn’t stop you having one if you want one, of course …

But it’s also worth remembering it’s not of vital use to you as a woman, either. … I don’t think there’s a single lesson that motherhood has to offer that couldn’t be learned elsewhere. …

Every woman who chooses — joyfully, thoughtfully, calmly, of her own free will and desire — not to have a child does womankind a massive favor in the long term. We need more women who are allowed to prove their worth as people, rather than being assessed merely for their potential to create new people. …

How’s that for being in charge of your vagina? Plus she’s got a bracingly frank chapter about having an abortion and never regretting it.

How to Be a Woman also hits on masturbation, menstruation, breasts, bras, bikini waxing, and lots more woman stuff. Moran’s righteous ranting is aimed at implementing “a Zero Tolerance policy on All the Patriarchal Bullshit.” And that includes “Zero Tolerance over baby angst.”

—–

For more on being green and childfree, read: Say it loud — I’m childfree and I’m proud.

In fiscal year 2012, the federal budget marked out $610 million for international family planning programs. But perhaps some of that funding needs to be directed inward, to fix the backwards bourgeois parents of Park Slope. Amy Sohn writes in the Awl:

You would think people with multiple children would be responsible about contraception because they understand the financial and emotional toll of childrearing. Instead they are as clueless and blasé as teens, teens who really don’t know any better … In the 90s we did “everything but intercourse” because of AIDSphobia. Now we do it because of laziness.

As for condoms, no way. If a twentysomething guy on “Girls” can’t be bothered to use rubbers, why would a forty-year-old monogamous dad?

Now, Sohn’s account of Park Slope parents’ misbehavior is anecdotal and just a teeny bit sensationalized (we fucking hope). But parts of it do ring true:

The combination of irresponsible contraception and illegal drugs among Regressives is the reason New York is in a baby boom right now. Those couples you see, grimacing, with the two babies fifteen months apart? They were drunk.

The sad thing about this behavior is that every Park Slope child that comes into this world brings with him or her the promise of tons of carbon dumped into the atmosphere. Even more tons than a kid born to a less outrageously wealthy family, because this one will need a cell phone by age 3 and SUV trips back and forth to pony-sports practice. (Or whatever … I don’t know what rich people do.) If people want kids, that’s one thing. But if they’re just acting stupidly and irresponsibly, they should know that their stupidity affects the planet a bazillionfold.

Practical solutions include: Workable male birth control, better IUD education, cheaper procedures for getting your tubes tied. Please, Park Slope parents — for the love of the planet, look into this stuff, or at least learn how condoms work. No matter how much homemade mayonnaise you buy, it’s not going to make up for the impact of a new baby.

One of the best things we can do for the planet is stop putting new humans on it, which means promoting safe and effective birth control for people who want to keep their offspring levels between zero and “get that, would you, Deirdre.” But hormonal birth control comes with side effects like weight gain, mood swings, blood clots, and Rush Limbaugh. Luckily, there’s a birth control option that’s safe, quick, easy, reversible, and 100 percent effective for 10 years. But back off, ladies: For once in our lives, this birth control’s just for dudes.

Now, I know what you’re thinking — chemical castration! That sounds like a good idea in some cases (Rush Limbaugh), but I did say “reversible.” Instead, this procedure, called RISUG (reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance), is more like a vasectomy by injection. Rather than snipping or cauterizing the vas deferens, as in a vasectomy, doctors inject it with a polymer gel. Here’s the crazy part: The gel’s not there to block the tube, but to actively destroy the sperm by RIPPING THEM APART through reverse polarity. (Imagine trying to travel down a hallway with powerful magnets on the floor and ceiling, and also your skin is full of metal.)

The procedure takes 15 minutes with local anaesthesia (if you want to see what it looks like, Wired has a video, but fair warning: It includes balls). RISUG also is much easier to reverse than the technically-reversible vasectomy — you don’t have to reconnect the vas deferens, just flush it out with a baking soda solution.

So what’s the problem? There haven’t been clinical trials in the U.S. yet, just in India, and some of those have faced bureaucratic hurdles. RISUG is the brainchild of one scientist, Sujoy Guha, who doesn’t have the financial backing of large research institutions or pharmaceutical companies (though he did win a $100,000 Gates Foundation grant to develop a variant of RISUG — for women. Go figure). Clinical trials and approval processes take forever — Grist wrote about RISUG eight years ago, and nothing much has changed since then. And even if the procedure gets approved here (the FDA has approved the polymer under the name Vasalgel), nobody’s sure men will go for it. There’s a strong “don’t mess with my balls” thing that needs to be overcome, not to mention the weird cultural associations with birth control that have been increasingly evident lately — if birth control is for slutty ladies, how the hell do we interpret birth control for men?

Still, slowing population growth is of critical importance, so maybe some green-minded fellows will step up. If you’re one of them, or a lady who’s fed up with existing birth control options, you can fill out a petition with the Male Contraceptive Information Project. Bonus: You get to learn about the other innovative ideas out there, such as hot baths, “semen-free orgasm” pills, and magical underwear!

Babies! They use so much energy that the best thing you could do to save the human race from climate change might be to avoid having one altogether. But if you choose the reproductive path, at least the 6,000 poopy diapers that your offspring will produce in the course of his or her early years could have a second life as part of your house — specifically, as the shingles tiling your roof.

The diapers, thank goodness, are sterilized first. Then they’re separated out into their components. The, um, "organics" go to waste-to-electricity products, and the plastic part goes into roofing tiles. So it's not like you'd literally be living in your kid's waste. But close!

As human numbers approach 7 billion, the question is, “Where do we go from here?”

The U.N. recently published new population projections, which envision a range of possibilities for the 21st century. In the U.N.’s low projection, our numbers peak at 8 billion by mid-century, then decline to 6 billion by 2100. By contrast, the medium and high projections envision continued growth for the foreseeable future. According to the medium projection, the world’s population would reach 10 billion by 2100; according to the high projection, nearly 16 billion.

Now, I don’t believe there is an optimal size for the human population; greater equity and more efficient use of resources would greatly extend the planet’s “carrying capacity.” Yet, when you consider the resource challenges of the 21st century, 8 billion certainly looks more sustainable than 16 billion.

Take water, for example. While there is no global shortage of water, a growing number of regions are chronically parched. And many of those regions are also where population is growing most rapidly. In the world’s most “water poor” countries, population is expected to double by 2050. Slower growth is not a panacea for the world’s water problems, but it could ease pressure on scarce resources and buy time to craft solutions.

The good news is that we know how to slow population growth. Over the last half century, we’ve learned that the best way to slow growth is not through coercive “population control,” but by ensuring that all people are able to make real choices about childbearing.

Women’s rights are key. Fertility rates remain high where women’s status is low. Fewer than one-fifth of the world’s countries will account for nearly all of the world’s population growth this century. Not coincidentally, those countries — the least developed nations in sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia, and elsewhere — are also where girls are less likely to attend school, where child marriage is common, and where women lack basic rights.

Read more on population. Check out our series 7 Billion: What to expect when you're expanding

That can change. Nations can raise women’s status by educating girls, by enforcing laws that prohibit child marriage, and by improving women’s access to credit, land, training, and jobs. Where women enjoy these fundamental rights, smaller (and healthier) families become the norm.

At the same time, women need the means to make choices: family planning and other reproductive health services. Around the world, some 215 million want to avoid pregnancy, but aren’t using effective methods of contraception. Fulfilling that “unmet need” for family planning would require an additional $3.6 billion [PDF] annually; the U.S. share of the cost (based on a formula developed by the U.N. Population Fund) is about $1 billion [PDF].

And the potential benefits are huge: Improved access to family planning could prevent 53 million unintended pregnancies, 150,000 maternal deaths, and 25 million abortions each year.

Women’s rights and reproductive health are vitally important in their own right, as a matter of public health and social justice. They can also help slow population growth and help ensure a sustainable future.

Read more in this vein from Laurie Mazur and more on women’s rights and population.

Take a look in the mirror.

But actually the population problem is all about me: white, middle-class, American me. Steer the blame right over here.

Well-meaning people have told me that I’m “just the sort of person who should have kids.” Au contraire. I’m just the sort of person who should not have kids.

Population isn’t just about counting heads. The impact of humanity on the environment is not determined solely by how many of us are around, but by how much stuff we use and how much room we take up. And as a financially comfortable American, I use a lot of stuff and take up a lot of room.

My carbon footprint is more than 200 times bigger than an average Ethiopian’s, and more than 12 times bigger than an average Indian’s, and twice as big as an average Brit’s.

When a poor woman in Uganda has another child — too often because she lacks access to family-planning services, economic opportunity, or self-determination — she might dampen her family’s prospects for climbing out of poverty or add to her community’s challenges in providing everyone with clean water and safe food, but she certainly isn’t placing a big burden on the global environment.

When someone like me has a child — watch out, world! Gear, gadgets, gewgaws, bigger house, bigger car, oil from the Mideast, coal from Colombia, coltan from the Congo, rare earths from China, pesticide-laden cotton from Egypt, genetically modified soy from Brazil. And then when that child has children, wash, rinse, and repeat (in hot water, of course). Without even trying, we Americans slurp up resources from every corner of the globe and then spit 99 percent of them back out again as pollution.

Conscientious people try to limit that consumption, of course. I’m one of them. I get around largely by bus and on foot, eat low on the food chain, buy used rather than new, keep the heat low, rein in my gadget lust. But even putting aside my remaining carbon sins (see: flying), the fact is that just by virtue of living in America, enjoying some small portion of its massive material infrastructure, my carbon footprint is at unsustainable levels.

Far and away the biggest contribution I can make to a cleaner environment is to not bring any mini-me’s into the world. A 2009 study by statisticians at Oregon State University found that the climate impact of having one fewer child in America is almost 20 times greater than the impact of adopting a series of eco-friendly practices for your entire lifetime, things like driving a high-mileage car, recycling, and using efficient appliances and CFLs.

And so, for environmental as well as personal reasons, I’ve decided not to have children. I call myself a GINK: green inclinations, no kids.

Most people won’t make the same decision, of course, and I don’t fault them for that. Everyone has different circumstances and values, and environmental issues are not the only ones worth considering. I believe in choice, and that means supporting choices different from mine.

But it needs to become easier for people to make the same decision I have, if they are so inclined.

Here in the U.S., the Pill has been available for more than 50 years. It’s now almost universally accepted that women will use birth control to delay, space out, or limit childbearing. But there’s not so much acceptance for using birth control to completely skip childbearing. At some point, you’re expected to grow up, pair up, put the Pill off to the side, and produce a couple of kids. Deviate from this scenario and you’ll get weird looks and face awkward conversations with family members, friends, coworkers, and complete strangers.

One 30-something woman I know who works for a reproductive-health NGO says that her colleagues pester her about her decision not to have children, telling her she needs to get started on that family or she’ll regret it. And these are people whose careers are dedicated to making birth control and reproductive health care available to all women! Pro-natal bias runs deep.

Many women in the U.S. have found that it’s difficult if not impossible to find a doctor who will perform a tubal ligation if the woman has not already had children (and sometimes even if she has). Doctors warn that sterilization is an irreversible, life-altering decision. But having a child is an irreversible, life-altering decision and you don’t find doctors warning women away from that. The broadly held prejudice, in the medical profession and much of the rest of society, is that becoming a parent is the right and inevitable choice.

Over recent years and decades, it’s become more acceptable for mixed-race couples to have children, and single women, and gay couples, and women over the age of 40, and that’s all good. Acceptance has been slower to come for the decision not to have children. There’s now a fledgling childfree movement, but some who are part of it say they still feel like they’re violating a taboo.

Read more on population. Check out our series 7 Billion: What to expect when you're expanding

Finally, it will mean fewer Americans making a mess of the planet, and a little more breathing room for those of us who are already here or on the way.

I recognize that I am the population problem. I’m trying to be part of the solution. Let’s make it easier for others to join me.

A version of this post was originally published at RH Reality Check.

Quotable bits:

• “The overpopulation is still the biggest reason for global warming, for all the pressure on the environment.”

• “The truth is that global warming is a nuclear holocaust slowed down slightly.”

• “The important thing, I think, about both ecofeminism, as a term, and deep ecology … is that we are part of nature, not separate.”

• “There’s no concept of enough. There’s no concept of overdeveloped. We talk about underdeveloped; how come we never talk about overdeveloped? This country is overdeveloped. There’s no concept of enough money, of enough children, of balance.”

Of course, I have to point out that Steinem is a GINK — green inclinations, no kids. She opted against having children of her own.

Here’s another part of the ABC News segment with more background on Steinem, plus conversation about how climate change hurts women more than men. And here’s Steinem on The Colbert Report last year, arguing that men in egalitarian marriages have better relationships with their wives, live longer, and have better sex. She also talks about sexual pleasure and good fatherhood is this interview published in Grist last year.

This is the latest in a series of Saturday GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).

Betty White, honorary forest ranger and ardent environmentalist.Photo: USDA

Did you know that the octogenarian actress is a longtime environmentalist? She’s starring in a new campaign for The Wilderness Society: “Keep it wild with Betty White!” “Wilderness is harder and harder to find these days on this beautiful planet, and we’re abusing our planet to the point of almost no return,” White said last year when she was made an honorary forest ranger.

She’s also a huge animal lover. She has long been involved with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the Los Angeles Zoo, and other organizations that not only let people see animals but also that teach the importance of protecting them in the wild. Proceeds from her 2011 calendar — which features her surrounded by scantily clad hunks — are going to support the Morris Animal Foundation, which works on behalf of wildlife as well as companion animals.

White even has an eco-crush on Robert Redford. “Aside from just thinking he’s wonderful, I just love his love of nature. His films are great, but his environmental work just knocks me out,” she gushes.

On top of all this, White has kept her carbon footprint way down by opting not to have kids, though her reasons were personal rather than environmental. As she writes in her latest book, If You Ask Me (And of Course You Won’t):

Barbara Walters once asked me if I ever had desired to have a child. The answer is, I never did think about it. … I didn’t think I could do justice to both career and motherhood … It’s such an individual choice.

Like so many other childfree people, she’s caught flack for this. In an interview earlier this month on public radio station WNYC, host Leonard Lopate hassled White for her decision, pointing out that plenty of other women have successfully balanced careers and parenthood:

Lopate: You’ve never had children and you write that you’re not a big believer in being able to do both — having a career and being a mother.

White: But I meant I know a lot of girls who do that very successfully. I know myself too well that I’m so compulsive I would not to justice to them.

Lopate: Because there are a number of people who’ve talked about achieving that balance: Michelle Obama, Meredith Viera, Tina Fey –

White: Meryl Streep.

Lopate: They’ve been able to pull it off. …

White: Yes, but that’s, that’s — they know themselves well enough to know they can accomplish it. I know myself well enough to know I would feel guilt about neglecting the children every time I’d go to work.

Lopate: So the career wound up taking precedence –

White: And I’ve never regretted it.

…

Lopate: Our next guest had four kids of her own and then adopted five kids, and she’s been a successful journalist –

White: She feels about kids the way I feel about animals.

For crap sake, Leonard, let the woman be!

White, gracious under pressure, made it clear that she’s not judging anyone else’s decision — just talking about the decision that was right for her.

Green inclinations + no kids — that would make Betty White a GINK. Add in her charm, zest, and nonjudgmental attitude, and you’ve got a model GINK.

Betty, welcome to the club!

See also: Oprah on choosing to be childfree

“I felt like a gay person must feel, coming out of the closet and having these people validating me.”
– Jason Gill, quoted in a New York Times Magazine article on the childfree

“My friends and I have occasionally likened coming out as childfree to coming out as a gay person 40 or 50 years ago. There’s the same sense of shock — perhaps that’s too strong a word. But it’s a lifestyle people don’t expect and it may challenge their world view.”
– Rhona Sweeting, quoted in a BBC News article on the childfree

“I’m coming out of the closet. I’m sick of apologizing for my lifestyle which feels totally organic and right to me.”
– Jane, commenter on Childfree Life forum

At first the comparison struck me as ridiculous. Prejudice against the childfree is wholly different in kind and degree from prejudice against the LGBT population. Childfree people aren’t ejected from the military or denied housing or barred from marriage. The biggest threat of violence we might face is a peeved parent tempted to bonk us on the head with a diaper bag when we ramble on too long about a relaxing weekend getaway.

But acknowledging all that, still there is something to the idea of “coming out” as childfree. While some childfree people have no problem just putting it out there, many of us aren’t sure how to talk to some of the people in our lives about our choice not to have kids — whether it’s parents eager for grandchildren, siblings engrossed in parenthood, friends struggling with fertility issues, curious colleagues, or complete strangers. Saying “I’ve decided not to have kids” can feel like walking into a minefield. And not saying it can feel like concealing an important part of who we are.

I consulted a few coming-out guides to see if any struck a chord, and they certainly did. “Mom, Dad — believe me, it’s not a phase. I’ve known it for a long time.”

Consider these bastardized snippets, first from the Human Rights Campaign’s “Resource Guide to Coming Out“:

From birth, most of us are raised to think of ourselves as fitting into a certain mold. Our culture and our families teach us that we are “supposed” to [become parents] …

Once we do come out, most of us find that it feels far better to be open and honest than to conceal such an integral part of ourselves. We also come to recognize that our personal decision to live openly helps break down barriers and stereotypes that have kept others in the closet. And in doing so, we make it easier for others to follow our example.

And from About.com for GLBT Teens:

The Risks to Coming Out …

• Your friends and family might treat you differently.
• You might lose friends. …
• People might feel uncomfortable around you.
• You might be asked a lot of personal questions.
• Not everyone will be understanding or accepting.

And from EmptyClosets.com:

Coming out to your family may be the hardest thing for you to do in your coming out process. Your parents most likely raised you assuming that you would [become a parent yourself]. … When parents first learn of a child’s [decision to be childfree] they often feel a loss.

Yep, yep — with you on all that. But wait — there’s no bastardizing that can make this next sentence relevant:

It generally takes some time for [parents] to realize that they haven’t lost anything and that things like marriage and children are all still possible.

D’oh. Coming out as gay or lesbian might hit your parents hard at first, but at least you can still give them grandkids!

This points to a strange twist: While LGBT people face more vehement and vicious prejudice than the childfree, they can, if they choose, ultimately lead more conventional lives. Their families won’t look like the Cleavers, but they can have what many people would at least recognize as a family, following the traditional parent-with-child pattern. We childfree people, in contrast, are messing with the notion of family in a way that’s perhaps even more fundamental.

Are you a GINK -- green inclinations, no kids? Check out The GINK Manifesto and become a fan of GINK on Facebook.

Maybe that’s why gays actually seem to be further along in gaining social acceptance than the childfree. In my urban milieu, no one skips a beat or lifts an eyebrow if you say you’re gay, but people do often frown or avert their eyes or awkwardly change the subject if you say you’ve decided not to have kids — if they don’t tell you what you’re missing and try to get you to change your mind.

Take, as a pop-cultural example, the Sex and the City 2 movie. Carrie Bradshaw and the gang are having a gay old time at Stanford and Anthony’s big, fat, same-sex wedding when a woman starts interrogating Carrie and hubbie Mr. Big about when they’re going to have kids. “It’s just not for us,” Carrie responds. ”So it’s just going to be the two of you?” she asks, voice dripping with pity and disdain. Flamboyant gay lifestyle: A-OK. Heterosexual couple deciding to forego parenting: deviant.

We don’t face all the same challenges, but we childfree could certainly use some advice from our LGBT friends on how to claim our rightful place in society. Whether you’re LGBT or childfree or both, please share coming-out tips below in comments. Also, LGBT folks, do you feel this same pressure to have children?

—–

Also check out: Why are gays more eco-friendly?

As we zoom toward 7 billion, population growth is looking ever more hairy and daunting. The big-picture solution is empowering women everywhere and making sure they have the tools, knowledge, and support to control the size of their families, but that’s not something an average person can tackle on a lunch break. Of course you can (and you should) badger your congresspeople to fund family planning, both abroad and at home, and donate to nonprofits that work on these issues.

But what can we do ourselves, in our own lives and communities? Here are a few ideas. Add your own below in comments.

1. Push to improve sex ed in your local schools. The teen birthrate in the U.S., even though it’s fallen recently, is still far higher than in other developed countries, and that’s one reason the U.S. has a higher overall fertility rate than most wealthy nations. Schools need to be straight with kids about sex and contraception (unlike the coach in Mean Girls, who threatens: “Don’t have sex, because you will get pregnant and die! … OK, now everybody take some rubbers.”).

2. Let the teenagers in your life know they can talk to you about sex. Whether you’re a parent, stepparent, aunt, uncle, friend, or neighbor, make it known that you’ll answer questions frankly and even help teens get birth control (and not just so they can make condom water bombs).

3. Support abortion rights and family-planning programs, and vote for candidates who do the same. Yep, I said the A word. Deal with it.

4. If you are a parent, don’t pressure others to have kids. And hardest of all — gulp — don’t push your own kids to give you grandkids. (Reverse psychology might work better than nagging anyway.)

5. If you know you want to become a parent, consider having just two kids, or one. Only kids get a bad rep, but the evidence points to onlies being no weirder or worse off than children from larger families, and by many measures better off. You could also consider having kids a little later in life (larger gaps between generations mean slower population growth), or adopting or becoming a foster parent. Whatever your inclinations, just don’t pull a Duggar.

6. If you’re undecided about whether to have a kid, give it some serious thought. Hound parents for their unvarnished opinions on the pluses and minuses. Hang out with kids and see whether you can’t get enough or can’t wait to get away. Maybe you could become a highly involved godparent or co-parent to others’ kids — much of the fun, fewer of the diapers.

7. If you think parenting isn’t your thing, you could declare yourself a GINK (green inclinations, no kids). It might seem like a lonely choice, but more and more people are going childfree; nearly one in five women end up not having kids, according to the latest stats. And if you know parenting isn’t your thing (or just have a mischievous sense of humor), join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

8. Talk about all of this out in the open — while being respectful of everyone else’s choices, natch. And get on board with the Global Population Speak Out in February.