What do you think?
Rate this book
Maybe One: A Case for Smaller Families
In light of climate change warnings, more families are looking for ways to reduce their carbon footprint and help prevent disasters like rising sea levels, wildfires, and increasing global temperatures. In this compelling book, the author of The End of Nature and Falter argues for a solution with sociological, population, and environmental having fewer children.
The earth is becoming dangerously overcrowded, and if more families chose to have only one child, it would make a crucial difference toward ensuring a healthy future for ourselves and our planet for generations to come.
But the environment alone may not persuade most people to consider having just one child, as 80% of Americans have siblings. Powerful stereotypes about only children—that they’re spoiled, selfish, or maladjusted in some way—still persist. McKibben, the proud father of an only child himself, debunks these myths, citing research about the many emotional and intellectual strengths only children possess, including higher test scores, higher levels of achievement in school, and greater development of positive personality traits like maturity and self-control.
At once a powerful personal argument and an accessible exploration of what overpopulation could mean to human life and environmental sustainability, Maybe One is a provocative yet well-reasoned opening to what has become important and lasting debate.
The earth is becoming dangerously overcrowded, and if more families chose to have only one child, it would make a crucial difference toward ensuring a healthy future for ourselves and our planet for generations to come.
But the environment alone may not persuade most people to consider having just one child, as 80% of Americans have siblings. Powerful stereotypes about only children—that they’re spoiled, selfish, or maladjusted in some way—still persist. McKibben, the proud father of an only child himself, debunks these myths, citing research about the many emotional and intellectual strengths only children possess, including higher test scores, higher levels of achievement in school, and greater development of positive personality traits like maturity and self-control.
At once a powerful personal argument and an accessible exploration of what overpopulation could mean to human life and environmental sustainability, Maybe One is a provocative yet well-reasoned opening to what has become important and lasting debate.
257 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1999
4 people are currently reading
367 people want to read
About the author
Bill McKibben
201 books802 followersBill McKibben is the author of Eaarth, The End of Nature, Deep Economy, Enough, Fight Global Warming Now, The Bill McKibben Reader, and numerous other books. He is the founder of the environmental organizations Step It Up and 350.org, and was among the first to warn of the dangers of global warming. In 2010 The Boston Globe called him "probably the nation's leading environmentalist," and Time magazine has called him "the world's best green journalist." He studied at Harvard, and started his writing career as a staff writer at The New Yorker. The End of Nature, his first book, was published in 1989 and was regarded as the first book on climate change for a general audience. He is a frequent contributor to magazines and newspapers including The New York Times, The Atlantic Monthly, Harper's, Orion Magazine, Mother Jones, The New York Review of Books, Granta, Rolling Stone, and Outside. He has been awarded Guggenheim Fellowship and won the Lannan Prize for nonfiction writing in 2000. He is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College and lives in Vermont with his wife, the writer Sue Halpern, and their daughter.
http://us.macmillan.com/author/billmc...
http://us.macmillan.com/author/billmc...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
September 4, 2012
Some disclaimers, the same as for The Case for the Only Child: Your Essential Guide :)
(1) We haven’t made a final decision about our family’s size.
(2) I am not critiquing/judging/suggesting anyone else’s family’s size, reading this book is just a part of my own personal journey into motherhood.
(3) I understand the distrust that many of us have of statistics from scientific studies. In my own training I have learned enough about statistics to believe that while this distrust is often warranted (see the 1895 study mentioned below!!), there is still often truth in statistics conducted in proper research environments.
The main argument of this book for smaller families is a population argument, and I confess I didn’t read those two sections of the book. I completely agree and believe that if some of us choose to have one child, this will reduce the looming problems of over population. I am more interested in how not having a second child affects my already existing family, especially my son. McKibben begins his book by stating the same concerns for his family. He cites a recent survey that shows the single biggest reason parents give for having a second child is to provide their first child with a sibling. This has been the reason I have heard the most as well among my friends with second children. In truth, this reason has always bothered me as I feel like the main reason to have a second child should be that we as the parents really want a second child. But coming from a two child family myself, I have also always believed (unconsciously until now) that having a sibling is better than being an only child--learning to share, resolve familial conflict, etc. Unwittingly, I bought into the only-child stereotypes myself.
Clearly, it bothered McKibben also to think his daughter might have a psychological disadvantage as an only child, so he set out to find out if the stereotypes of only children as selfish, maladjusted loners were true. Fascinatingly, it turns out almost all of our stereotypes come from a study conducted in 1895 by a then preeminent researcher named G. Stanley Hall. Hall literally sent questionnaires to college instructors in several states, asking them to submit reports on unusual children—any unusual children then remembered, they did not have to be current pupils and could even be unusual friends the teachers remembered from childhood. Not only would this kind of anecdotal evidence never be accepted in scientific research today, it turns out Hall had 850 of his 1,045 responses from one teacher in the New Jersey State Normal School, a fact which clearly biases his sample. The teachers’ memories of unusual children were sorted and labeled as a part of the study as “clumsy,” “ugly,” “ill-tempered,” “disorderly,” etc. Hall noted that 46 of the 1,045 total cases were only children, and he concluded this was “a number entirely out of proportion to that found among children generally. The only child is therefore likely to be peculiar and exceptional.” It turns out that even though this study, as McKibben says, violates every rule that a modern social scientist would observe when conducting research, it was the only piece of research about only children for more than 30 years, and thus it was the gold standard for a time.
When McKibben tracked down some modern day researchers of only children, he found that pretty much all the research since the late 1920s has contradicted Hall’s findings, but it somehow hasn’t contradicted popular belief about only children. A meta-analysis by psychology researcher Toni Falbo and colleagues examined 141 studies on only children since the 1920s. (You can read more about Falbo here.) They found that only children scored significantly better than other groups in achievement motivation and personal adjustment and were in all other respects indistinguishable from children with brothers and sisters. These other respects included all aspects of personality development, such as self-esteem, loneliness, being spoiled, autonomy, maturity, generosity, contentment, peer popularity, and relations with parents. Falbo even cautions that the advantages that the research shows for only children (achievement motivation and personal adjustment) are very small differences, only 2% and are only present in very large samples. So basically only children are really just the same as anyone else.
The bottom line (for me)!!!
In my personal favorite quote of the book, Falbo says to McKibben “I tell you, I’ve done this research up one side and down the other. Believe me, my career would have taken off—it would have been Nobel Prize stuff—if I’d found that only kids were sick, sick, sick. They’re not. The conventional wisdom is wrong. But this still hasn’t sunk in.” Regardless of what we decide about our family size, this book has exploded my stereotypes and preconceptions about only children. I hope reading my review of the book changes your stereotypes too (if you had them :). If the psychology of only children interests you, I recommend getting this book from the library and reading the first (and maybe also the last) section, but skipping the population sections unless that is something you feel passionately about.
(1) We haven’t made a final decision about our family’s size.
(2) I am not critiquing/judging/suggesting anyone else’s family’s size, reading this book is just a part of my own personal journey into motherhood.
(3) I understand the distrust that many of us have of statistics from scientific studies. In my own training I have learned enough about statistics to believe that while this distrust is often warranted (see the 1895 study mentioned below!!), there is still often truth in statistics conducted in proper research environments.
The main argument of this book for smaller families is a population argument, and I confess I didn’t read those two sections of the book. I completely agree and believe that if some of us choose to have one child, this will reduce the looming problems of over population. I am more interested in how not having a second child affects my already existing family, especially my son. McKibben begins his book by stating the same concerns for his family. He cites a recent survey that shows the single biggest reason parents give for having a second child is to provide their first child with a sibling. This has been the reason I have heard the most as well among my friends with second children. In truth, this reason has always bothered me as I feel like the main reason to have a second child should be that we as the parents really want a second child. But coming from a two child family myself, I have also always believed (unconsciously until now) that having a sibling is better than being an only child--learning to share, resolve familial conflict, etc. Unwittingly, I bought into the only-child stereotypes myself.
Clearly, it bothered McKibben also to think his daughter might have a psychological disadvantage as an only child, so he set out to find out if the stereotypes of only children as selfish, maladjusted loners were true. Fascinatingly, it turns out almost all of our stereotypes come from a study conducted in 1895 by a then preeminent researcher named G. Stanley Hall. Hall literally sent questionnaires to college instructors in several states, asking them to submit reports on unusual children—any unusual children then remembered, they did not have to be current pupils and could even be unusual friends the teachers remembered from childhood. Not only would this kind of anecdotal evidence never be accepted in scientific research today, it turns out Hall had 850 of his 1,045 responses from one teacher in the New Jersey State Normal School, a fact which clearly biases his sample. The teachers’ memories of unusual children were sorted and labeled as a part of the study as “clumsy,” “ugly,” “ill-tempered,” “disorderly,” etc. Hall noted that 46 of the 1,045 total cases were only children, and he concluded this was “a number entirely out of proportion to that found among children generally. The only child is therefore likely to be peculiar and exceptional.” It turns out that even though this study, as McKibben says, violates every rule that a modern social scientist would observe when conducting research, it was the only piece of research about only children for more than 30 years, and thus it was the gold standard for a time.
When McKibben tracked down some modern day researchers of only children, he found that pretty much all the research since the late 1920s has contradicted Hall’s findings, but it somehow hasn’t contradicted popular belief about only children. A meta-analysis by psychology researcher Toni Falbo and colleagues examined 141 studies on only children since the 1920s. (You can read more about Falbo here.) They found that only children scored significantly better than other groups in achievement motivation and personal adjustment and were in all other respects indistinguishable from children with brothers and sisters. These other respects included all aspects of personality development, such as self-esteem, loneliness, being spoiled, autonomy, maturity, generosity, contentment, peer popularity, and relations with parents. Falbo even cautions that the advantages that the research shows for only children (achievement motivation and personal adjustment) are very small differences, only 2% and are only present in very large samples. So basically only children are really just the same as anyone else.
The bottom line (for me)!!!
In my personal favorite quote of the book, Falbo says to McKibben “I tell you, I’ve done this research up one side and down the other. Believe me, my career would have taken off—it would have been Nobel Prize stuff—if I’d found that only kids were sick, sick, sick. They’re not. The conventional wisdom is wrong. But this still hasn’t sunk in.” Regardless of what we decide about our family size, this book has exploded my stereotypes and preconceptions about only children. I hope reading my review of the book changes your stereotypes too (if you had them :). If the psychology of only children interests you, I recommend getting this book from the library and reading the first (and maybe also the last) section, but skipping the population sections unless that is something you feel passionately about.
May 31, 2015
Bill McKibben is the head of 350.org and a hero of mine. In this book, he discusses one-child families and the problem of overpopulation.
There are many prejudices against only children. Number one is that they are "spoiled." In one essay, the author discusses this and other wrongful ideas.
He is in no way interested in a Chinese style forced one-child policy.
The world has about 7 billion people now. It may peak out at about 11 billion. A sustainable number would be less than 3 billion. Good luck reaching that figure. We add a New York City every month, a Mexico every year, and an India every decade. This can't go on.
Odd fact: an iceberg lettuce head is 95% water, 50 calories of energy, but takes 400 calories of energy to grow it and 1,800 calories of energy to ship it east.
New technology in fishing has decreased the number of fish available. The math is not looking good to say the least.
Insurance companies are now taking climate change seriously. They have to foot the bills for these disasters.
At symposiums now, scientists are admitting that it is no longer about future change. The world has already been transformed. We actually increase wind speeds by cutting down trees and increasing deserts.
Coastal waters and estuaries are blooming with toxic algae. The EPA as I write this is trying to do something about this problem. It will need some controls over cattle. But you can guess who is opposed. Polluters hide under the shield of "freedom."
Carbon dioxide is not pollution, carbon monoxide is. But CO2 is a culprit in global warming. We have cleaned up a lot of lead and other pollutants. The skies seem better. Don't be fooled. They are not.
If we wait 20 years to stop this, we will lose. By that point, we might as well not even try.
Don't let other countries fool you. They are breaking their pledges about cutting CO2 emissions.
We need to change our attitude about what the American Dream means.
Mobil Oil buys ads to tell "its side" of the story. As usual, the wording is deceiving.
Coal produces the most CO2. China has most of the world's coal. Hard to imagine them cutting back enough. An Exxon executive went there and urged the Chinese not to worry: the world's temperature often changes, he said, citing the Ice Age.
There will be "environmental refugees" to deal with because of climate change once it reaches full effect.
McKibben takes on the issue of immigration head on. It cannot last forever. Problems at the source, such as overpopulation, must be dealt with.
Lifeboat ethics don't work if you live on a yacht. We have to stop with all the stuff. About 3 billion people lack proper sanitation. Human wastes kill far more people than nuclear wastes.
One journalist studying water problems could not talk openly about too many people without having the Catholic church and every other group on the left or right complaining.
Sex education works. It helps to cut unwanted teenage birth rates.
Millions of acres of farmland are lost for good because of overpopulation. How do they get fed? We lose topsoil 18 times faster than we replace it.
McKibben describes his vasectomy and recommends other men follow suit.
World religions urge large families. The Bible begins with "be fruitful and multiply." It was St. Augustine who affected the Catholic church's stand. He was once a Manichaen and their stand on sex was decidedly negative. Augustine looked at birth control as wrong. If his contemporaries had followed St. John Chrysostom instead, we might have a different world view. In 1930, Pope Pius XI banned all artificial contraception in reaction to a Protestant stand. If only Catholics would publicly fight back and get this changed.
In Toni Morrison's novel Sula, the main character says, "I don't want to make somebody else. I want to make myself."
We can no longer live in this unsustainable fashion. The planet depends on us changing.
There are many prejudices against only children. Number one is that they are "spoiled." In one essay, the author discusses this and other wrongful ideas.
He is in no way interested in a Chinese style forced one-child policy.
The world has about 7 billion people now. It may peak out at about 11 billion. A sustainable number would be less than 3 billion. Good luck reaching that figure. We add a New York City every month, a Mexico every year, and an India every decade. This can't go on.
Odd fact: an iceberg lettuce head is 95% water, 50 calories of energy, but takes 400 calories of energy to grow it and 1,800 calories of energy to ship it east.
New technology in fishing has decreased the number of fish available. The math is not looking good to say the least.
Insurance companies are now taking climate change seriously. They have to foot the bills for these disasters.
At symposiums now, scientists are admitting that it is no longer about future change. The world has already been transformed. We actually increase wind speeds by cutting down trees and increasing deserts.
Coastal waters and estuaries are blooming with toxic algae. The EPA as I write this is trying to do something about this problem. It will need some controls over cattle. But you can guess who is opposed. Polluters hide under the shield of "freedom."
Carbon dioxide is not pollution, carbon monoxide is. But CO2 is a culprit in global warming. We have cleaned up a lot of lead and other pollutants. The skies seem better. Don't be fooled. They are not.
If we wait 20 years to stop this, we will lose. By that point, we might as well not even try.
Don't let other countries fool you. They are breaking their pledges about cutting CO2 emissions.
We need to change our attitude about what the American Dream means.
Mobil Oil buys ads to tell "its side" of the story. As usual, the wording is deceiving.
Coal produces the most CO2. China has most of the world's coal. Hard to imagine them cutting back enough. An Exxon executive went there and urged the Chinese not to worry: the world's temperature often changes, he said, citing the Ice Age.
There will be "environmental refugees" to deal with because of climate change once it reaches full effect.
McKibben takes on the issue of immigration head on. It cannot last forever. Problems at the source, such as overpopulation, must be dealt with.
Lifeboat ethics don't work if you live on a yacht. We have to stop with all the stuff. About 3 billion people lack proper sanitation. Human wastes kill far more people than nuclear wastes.
One journalist studying water problems could not talk openly about too many people without having the Catholic church and every other group on the left or right complaining.
Sex education works. It helps to cut unwanted teenage birth rates.
Millions of acres of farmland are lost for good because of overpopulation. How do they get fed? We lose topsoil 18 times faster than we replace it.
McKibben describes his vasectomy and recommends other men follow suit.
World religions urge large families. The Bible begins with "be fruitful and multiply." It was St. Augustine who affected the Catholic church's stand. He was once a Manichaen and their stand on sex was decidedly negative. Augustine looked at birth control as wrong. If his contemporaries had followed St. John Chrysostom instead, we might have a different world view. In 1930, Pope Pius XI banned all artificial contraception in reaction to a Protestant stand. If only Catholics would publicly fight back and get this changed.
In Toni Morrison's novel Sula, the main character says, "I don't want to make somebody else. I want to make myself."
We can no longer live in this unsustainable fashion. The planet depends on us changing.
August 17, 2007
Good things: McKibben blows away the perception that only children are somehow emotionally disadvantaged compared to kids with siblings; and he argues persuasively that people with fewer children can do good in the world in other ways, because they have more time to spare. A Christian himself, he deals head on with the attitude shared by the Catholic church and Christian fundamentalists everywhere: that "be fruitful and multiply" means we ought to take no control of our reproductive lives. McKibben's answer is: as a species, we've fulfilled that commandment. It's time to spend our resources and energy on all the other commandments that we haven't yet aced, like feeding the poor and promoting peace.
One very bad thing, and the reason why I docked him two stars: in spite of his claim that he respects people who make the decision to be completely childless, in the last chapters of the book, he displays a clear bias against those who choose not to reproduce at all. He portrays them as self-centered materialists whose only concern is that their comfortable lives not be disturbed by the mess and responsibility of children. But this does not follow from his argument - if a person with only one child can use his extra time, energy, and money to make the world a better place, than a fortiori a childless person has even more to contribute. Truthfully, both people who choose to be parents and people who choose not to are motivated by complex combinations of selfish and unselfish reasons. Some people choose to be childless because they want to continue a comfortable materialist lifestyle, but others make the choice so they can throw themselves fully into an activist career, or because they believe they'd be terrible parents, or because they want to protect the environment, or because they have genetic disorders they do not want to pass on. And while it is true that many people choose to become parents for generous reasons, many others do so for selfish or stupid reasons - because of some misguided religious belief, or to satisfy their parents, or to have a little person around to abuse and control, or simply because that's what everybody does. Furthermore, not everyone "decides" to have a child or be childless; most pregnancies are unplanned, and quite a lot of people end up childless because they are infertile, or because they are unable to find a suitable partner and do not wish to become single parents.
McKibben is clearly capable of nuance, and he's at his best when he notes that having siblings is better in some ways, worse in others, than being an only. I wish he could've applied that nuance when discussing the question of childlessness.
One very bad thing, and the reason why I docked him two stars: in spite of his claim that he respects people who make the decision to be completely childless, in the last chapters of the book, he displays a clear bias against those who choose not to reproduce at all. He portrays them as self-centered materialists whose only concern is that their comfortable lives not be disturbed by the mess and responsibility of children. But this does not follow from his argument - if a person with only one child can use his extra time, energy, and money to make the world a better place, than a fortiori a childless person has even more to contribute. Truthfully, both people who choose to be parents and people who choose not to are motivated by complex combinations of selfish and unselfish reasons. Some people choose to be childless because they want to continue a comfortable materialist lifestyle, but others make the choice so they can throw themselves fully into an activist career, or because they believe they'd be terrible parents, or because they want to protect the environment, or because they have genetic disorders they do not want to pass on. And while it is true that many people choose to become parents for generous reasons, many others do so for selfish or stupid reasons - because of some misguided religious belief, or to satisfy their parents, or to have a little person around to abuse and control, or simply because that's what everybody does. Furthermore, not everyone "decides" to have a child or be childless; most pregnancies are unplanned, and quite a lot of people end up childless because they are infertile, or because they are unable to find a suitable partner and do not wish to become single parents.
McKibben is clearly capable of nuance, and he's at his best when he notes that having siblings is better in some ways, worse in others, than being an only. I wish he could've applied that nuance when discussing the question of childlessness.
January 10, 2016
This book had me convinced I should get a vasectomy at the age of 20 and never have any children. My father talked me out of the procedure. Six years later, Bill McKibben came to my community to speak. I introduced myself at a reception and told him the story. He said his views had changed since writing this book and that he puts less stress on the P of the I=PAT equation now (as is also evidenced by his more recent works and advocacy). I asked him to sign my copy of Maybe One; he wrote "Hold off on the operation!" :)
June 25, 2007
I found it non-preachy and not critical of people who choose to have many children. I finished reading this book a little while before my son was born and I think it's a well done and sensitive exploration of the subject on a personal basis. Also, I'm very much encouraged to know that if my son is an only child, we won't have "messed him up." I know several only children who are fine, but still I had a lingering doubt.
October 8, 2009
An interesting take on the usually taboo subjects of how many children to have and the impact of population on the environment. McKibben writes from the perspective of someone who vowed to have no children who now has one, so he takes a step back from some hard-line positions. The result is a sensitive analysis of the arguments around population, children, siblings, and environment.
If there's one lesson to take from it, I would say it's that the decision about how many children to have should be a conscious, thought-out choice and not left to chance or pressure from family and friends. A valuable read for anyone considering children.
If there's one lesson to take from it, I would say it's that the decision about how many children to have should be a conscious, thought-out choice and not left to chance or pressure from family and friends. A valuable read for anyone considering children.
September 7, 2012
As an only child, I went into this with high expectations, and they were mostly met.
McKibben does a fantastic job of breaking down the ethical & environmental reasons why US families should consider remaining childless, or having "maybe one" child. In the process, he also addresses the origins and impact of some of the more persistent myths about only children & their development.
We aren't ALL spoiled brats with no social skills, I SWEAR.
McKibben does a fantastic job of breaking down the ethical & environmental reasons why US families should consider remaining childless, or having "maybe one" child. In the process, he also addresses the origins and impact of some of the more persistent myths about only children & their development.
We aren't ALL spoiled brats with no social skills, I SWEAR.
July 14, 2008
A very thorough argument for single-child families, and one that I wholeheartedly agree with (if you plan to have your own biological children). For people like me who hope to not reproduce, however, he doesn't give that perspective as much weight. Maybe he hasn't met many of us who are thinking deliberatly about it, and not just with self-interest in mind...
March 20, 2008
Just adds to my argument that only children are the best children. Seriously, a super important book if you are having a baby (like me) discusses the environmental impacts of each new American.
October 7, 2008
Boring.
September 18, 2011
I was somewhat disappointed by this book. Maybe because it now seems old (1998) and strange though it seems for a population book, I found myself thinking many times about certain arguments he would make, "Well, not since 9/11." The more real critique for me is that when I picked it up, when it was recommended to me, I did not think it would be a population book. I thought it would be a book about the best ways to raise a single child, the benefits of it, the gifts. Instead there's chapters and chapters that have nothing to do with single children, and everything to do with curbing immigration (the most strange chapter), world overpopulation and malnutrition, etc. It's just not the book I expected, or wanted. McKibben's digression though the first several chapters, to debunk the bad stereotypes of single kids (they're self-absorbed, they're loners, weirdos) just seemed really, really out of place--I felt like this was probably in the cultural consciousness in the 50s and 60s, but certainly not for the past 20 years.
Still, there are some gifts here. I wish he had spent more time ruminating on what it would mean if more Americans made having a single child, in Alice Walker's words, "a meaningful digression" in their lives, an addition to their life's work and other gifts to the larger community, not the SOLE focus of their lives. McKibben offers that "We need to find ways to be adults, grown-ups, people who focus on others, without being parents of large families" (197). The planet is too small and in need of healing and help by all that might be capable, and I think many of us in the American middle class are pretty darn capable, if not motivated to see part of a full and healthy (even maternal) life as helping others, being involved with others, being devoted to our communities. I think that's the beautiful key here, and why I was so unhappy through much of the book. McKibben wrote this an an environmental book, but more than ever, I wish we had the space to combine the environmental with the communal. Only this will provide the gestalt shift in American society that will begin to lay the foundation for real change.
Still, there are some gifts here. I wish he had spent more time ruminating on what it would mean if more Americans made having a single child, in Alice Walker's words, "a meaningful digression" in their lives, an addition to their life's work and other gifts to the larger community, not the SOLE focus of their lives. McKibben offers that "We need to find ways to be adults, grown-ups, people who focus on others, without being parents of large families" (197). The planet is too small and in need of healing and help by all that might be capable, and I think many of us in the American middle class are pretty darn capable, if not motivated to see part of a full and healthy (even maternal) life as helping others, being involved with others, being devoted to our communities. I think that's the beautiful key here, and why I was so unhappy through much of the book. McKibben wrote this an an environmental book, but more than ever, I wish we had the space to combine the environmental with the communal. Only this will provide the gestalt shift in American society that will begin to lay the foundation for real change.
October 10, 2008
Of ocurse this book might be hard to read if you have more than one child, the book is fascinating in where some of the myths of only children come from - surprise - bad social science. Also interesting from the religious side that doctrine made from the opinions of people, not mandates from Christ/God. The environmental section is also saddening for where we are headed on this planet and McKibben does a good job of discussing our environmental footprint, not just the # of children. An eye-opening read.
August 10, 2018
Published in '98 so we are about 40% of the way through McKibben's hypothetical "next 50 years." It would have been nice to include an epilogue, how his "one" is doing and what plans she might have for herself, how we are tracking against population growth forecasts (quick googling looks like the trajectory hasn't changed that much).
This was an enjoyable read for me because it is a topic my husband and I also put a lot of thought into and it is still a "third rail" conversation to have with friends and family whose plans and reasoning may differ.
This was an enjoyable read for me because it is a topic my husband and I also put a lot of thought into and it is still a "third rail" conversation to have with friends and family whose plans and reasoning may differ.
December 3, 2011
Anyone who has ever worried about whether they should have child #2 to make sure that child #1 wasn't a screw up should read this and feel relieved. There are many myths about only children, and this book puts them to rest.
March 2, 2009
i loved it... i only wish that more people would read this book.
June 18, 2014
Thought this book was really insightful regarding population and environmental issues. Good/important read regardless of if you have kids or not.
December 19, 2022
A thoughtful book about a fraught subject. McKibben is such an elegant and humble writer that he can tackle a subject that is full of land mines like family size and overpopulation.
A few years ago I read the Population Bomb, which was a sensation back when it was first published in the late 1960s or early 1970s. That book is a catastrophe, shrill and overconfident about the future. McKibben, writing in 1998, opens with a personal discussion of his own struggles alongside his wife to make thoughtful choices about what size they want their own family to be. He isn't preachy or bombastic; he avoids the implicit racism that frequently underlies these kinds of discussions; and he certainly recognizes the horror of policies such as China's one-child policy that attempt to force limiting family sizes on people instead of letting them make their own choices.
The first part of the book is a long discussion about the cultural perception that only children are weird or selfish or otherwise deficient. He traces many of these perceptions to a hundred year old study that apparently is responsible for putting a lot of these ideas into the public mind originally. As you might guess, the old study is deeply flawed, and virtually all subsequent research has indicated that only children are pretty much like anybody else. If anything, because they get a little more parental attention, they seem to turn out with marginally higher IQs and generally perform slightly better on average across a range of measurements that we associate with success and happiness.
McKibben believes our societal perceptions about the loneliness and social isolation of only children are the biggest factor that goes into pressuring couples to have a second child, even if they may not wish to do so. While he mentions that role of traditional Catholic teaching, and alludes to his own Christianity, he is of the opinion that the psychologist has had a bigger impact on our attitudes than the priest, if I may paraphrase.
He also discusses environmental impacts of a population that continues to grow worldwide and the question of exactly what the total capacity of the earth might be. A very hard question to answer with any kind of certainty but I thought his summation of different guesses was evenhanded. He also discusses immigration and what he views as the desirability of reducing the population in the US by limiting immigration. This was the section of the book that I felt was misguided and ill-conceived. While I do take some of his points, in the end, human population is a worldwide phenomenon and the US cannot wall itself off from what is happening elsewhere, at least not indefinitely. I wonder if McKibben were to address this topic today, and in light of the politics of recent years, if he might not have modified his views in some ways.
This is the fourth McKibben book I've read, and I've been very high on three of the four (the End of Nature, The Age of Missing Information, and this one) and lukewarm on the other (Hope, Human and Wild). He is one of our most engaging writers, drawing you in even when your instinct is to resist the premise. Greatly looking forward to the rest of his catalogue.
A few years ago I read the Population Bomb, which was a sensation back when it was first published in the late 1960s or early 1970s. That book is a catastrophe, shrill and overconfident about the future. McKibben, writing in 1998, opens with a personal discussion of his own struggles alongside his wife to make thoughtful choices about what size they want their own family to be. He isn't preachy or bombastic; he avoids the implicit racism that frequently underlies these kinds of discussions; and he certainly recognizes the horror of policies such as China's one-child policy that attempt to force limiting family sizes on people instead of letting them make their own choices.
The first part of the book is a long discussion about the cultural perception that only children are weird or selfish or otherwise deficient. He traces many of these perceptions to a hundred year old study that apparently is responsible for putting a lot of these ideas into the public mind originally. As you might guess, the old study is deeply flawed, and virtually all subsequent research has indicated that only children are pretty much like anybody else. If anything, because they get a little more parental attention, they seem to turn out with marginally higher IQs and generally perform slightly better on average across a range of measurements that we associate with success and happiness.
McKibben believes our societal perceptions about the loneliness and social isolation of only children are the biggest factor that goes into pressuring couples to have a second child, even if they may not wish to do so. While he mentions that role of traditional Catholic teaching, and alludes to his own Christianity, he is of the opinion that the psychologist has had a bigger impact on our attitudes than the priest, if I may paraphrase.
He also discusses environmental impacts of a population that continues to grow worldwide and the question of exactly what the total capacity of the earth might be. A very hard question to answer with any kind of certainty but I thought his summation of different guesses was evenhanded. He also discusses immigration and what he views as the desirability of reducing the population in the US by limiting immigration. This was the section of the book that I felt was misguided and ill-conceived. While I do take some of his points, in the end, human population is a worldwide phenomenon and the US cannot wall itself off from what is happening elsewhere, at least not indefinitely. I wonder if McKibben were to address this topic today, and in light of the politics of recent years, if he might not have modified his views in some ways.
This is the fourth McKibben book I've read, and I've been very high on three of the four (the End of Nature, The Age of Missing Information, and this one) and lukewarm on the other (Hope, Human and Wild). He is one of our most engaging writers, drawing you in even when your instinct is to resist the premise. Greatly looking forward to the rest of his catalogue.
October 5, 2022
Originally published in 1998, this book makes a compelling argument for why smaller family sizes may be needed from an environmental perspective. Whether you have children — and how many you have — is a deeply personal decision that McKibben fully recognizes in this book. He doesn't advocate for government interventions limiting family size, like China's one-child policy. Instead, he tries to tackle all the reasons people may not want to limit their family size and then lays out the argument why doing so — in tandem with many other things — may help our increasingly-crowded and hot planet survive the next few generations in a better state.
McKibben writes: "We need, in these fifty years, to be working simultaneously on all parts of the equation — on our ways of life, on our technologies, and on our populations. We need to be electing the right politicians, boycotting the wrong companies, recycling, riding bikes, buying tiny little cars. If we can open up a bit more margin by having fewer kids, that will help. It's like trying to make sure your car has 60,000 miles instead of 90,000 a decade after you got it. It's still not a new car. The difference between 60,000 and 90,000 is subtle. But it's real, too."
McKibben writes: "We need, in these fifty years, to be working simultaneously on all parts of the equation — on our ways of life, on our technologies, and on our populations. We need to be electing the right politicians, boycotting the wrong companies, recycling, riding bikes, buying tiny little cars. If we can open up a bit more margin by having fewer kids, that will help. It's like trying to make sure your car has 60,000 miles instead of 90,000 a decade after you got it. It's still not a new car. The difference between 60,000 and 90,000 is subtle. But it's real, too."
March 14, 2021
Pretty great. There's a lot of stuff in here that was really useful for me to hear. Similar to his book called Falter, there were parts of this book I really liked and parts that were not quite necessary for his entire argument. The heart and soul of the book is Part One: Family. McKibben debunks many of the stereotypes of the "only child" - spoiled, asocial, difficulty making friends - all those things. He does his research and takes us through a bit of history. And basically - none of that is true. That was the most powerful message of this book. And for us to have a shot at avoiding the worst effects of climate chaos - everybody on Earth has to start having fewer and fewer children. Some of the stuff near the end - especially his chapter on Judeo-Christian teachings and tradition - was a little off. Not really that useful to the argument. Yes, religion is terrible and the Catholic Church is all about shame and guilt. Maybe I can just dismiss this chapter because it's 23 years old and the world as a whole is far less religious than it was back then. Final Word: Highly recommend - especially to my peers and younger who are considering parenthood.
October 19, 2023
3.5ish stars rounding down to 3. As McKibben acknowledges it will in an early section, this book now feels very out of date. There is both too much optimism about future trends and reluctance to critique problematic lines of thinking. Particularly disliked his point about how parenthood is the primary means of maturation with no acknowledgment of alternate correlations (growing older, caring for aging relatives…etc). However, it was refreshing to read a genuine discussion of population size in relation to climate change which remains relatively unexplored even in 2023.
April 17, 2018
Read this a while before we had our child but it stuck with me enough that about six months after we did I had a vasectomy and have been happy about the decision ever since. You’re welcome!
May 16, 2023
"Maybe One" is important and well written. It explores the limits to growth of the human population. Humans collectively cause climate change. We are also depleting fresh water sources and out-growing our food supply. McKibben presents copious research to illuminate each problem, and he presents everything clearly.
Early hunter-gatherer humans lived simply. They consumed an average of 2500 calories per day. Now, immense energy is used to provide our food. We extract and refine fossil fuel, clear-cut areas to grow food, plant the food, make fertilizer and pesticide, spread fertilizer and pesticide, harvest food, prepare food, make food containers, fill food containers, transport the food, refrigerate or freeze it in a grocery store, get the buyer to the store, etc. Essentially, modern humans consume many times as many calories per day due to these energy costs. Then we also heat and cool our homes, and much more.
As has been noted, “Good planets are hard to find” and we are using up this one.
Early hunter-gatherer humans lived simply. They consumed an average of 2500 calories per day. Now, immense energy is used to provide our food. We extract and refine fossil fuel, clear-cut areas to grow food, plant the food, make fertilizer and pesticide, spread fertilizer and pesticide, harvest food, prepare food, make food containers, fill food containers, transport the food, refrigerate or freeze it in a grocery store, get the buyer to the store, etc. Essentially, modern humans consume many times as many calories per day due to these energy costs. Then we also heat and cool our homes, and much more.
As has been noted, “Good planets are hard to find” and we are using up this one.
June 11, 2010
What the fuck, Bill McKibben?
This book should be titled Absolutely One: Or Else You Are A Selfish Bastard.
And the argument made for why you're a selfish bastard?
Well, apparently, Bill McKibben feels that people who choose to have no children are selfish. And immature. And self-indulgent.
Well, Bill McKibben, why didn't you adopt one of the desperately in-need children who was already on this planet, maybe a little girl from China whose parents abandoned her with a note pinned to her blanket, and call her your ONE, and stop being so selfish yourself?
I believe that this is a conversation that needs to be started. People need to think about the impact of their personal decisions on the health of the planet. Population is a serious consideration for determining how to help the earth continue to support life as we know it.
However, I was shocked and dismayed by the way this book is concluded. It is terribly counter-productive for the person bringing up this difficult topic to be so obviously uncertain about their choice to not have more than one, to the point that he ridicules those who have chosen not to reproduce.
Well, in all your calculations, Bill, did you notice that A LOT of people need to choose to not have any children of their own? That that is an important CHOICE to SUPPORT and NOT RIDICULE? Did you notice the MAYBE in your title? Or did someone else throw that in for you?
I am disappointed in your decision to share your opinion that people without children are selfish, rather than to find (doesn't God help you to do this?) a way to believe that there are other sources of joy and meaning in life. Becoming a parent is not a requirement for one to be a "good" person. And, in fact, people who are able to find joy and meaning in other things are doing more for the planet than you are.
You back-pedaled a little, yes, I know. But this is what editing is for. Have the thought. Go on hating that book (Beyond Motherhood). But then realize that stating these opinions is counterproductive before publishing it in this book that is supposed to support people in making the decision to have less children. And less must sometimes (or as often as possible, in my opinion) mean none.
PS. Don't you think it's selfish that the only thing you can care about more than yourself (the thing that supposedly makes you un-selfish) is yourself reconstituted?
This book should be titled Absolutely One: Or Else You Are A Selfish Bastard.
And the argument made for why you're a selfish bastard?
Well, apparently, Bill McKibben feels that people who choose to have no children are selfish. And immature. And self-indulgent.
Well, Bill McKibben, why didn't you adopt one of the desperately in-need children who was already on this planet, maybe a little girl from China whose parents abandoned her with a note pinned to her blanket, and call her your ONE, and stop being so selfish yourself?
I believe that this is a conversation that needs to be started. People need to think about the impact of their personal decisions on the health of the planet. Population is a serious consideration for determining how to help the earth continue to support life as we know it.
However, I was shocked and dismayed by the way this book is concluded. It is terribly counter-productive for the person bringing up this difficult topic to be so obviously uncertain about their choice to not have more than one, to the point that he ridicules those who have chosen not to reproduce.
Well, in all your calculations, Bill, did you notice that A LOT of people need to choose to not have any children of their own? That that is an important CHOICE to SUPPORT and NOT RIDICULE? Did you notice the MAYBE in your title? Or did someone else throw that in for you?
I am disappointed in your decision to share your opinion that people without children are selfish, rather than to find (doesn't God help you to do this?) a way to believe that there are other sources of joy and meaning in life. Becoming a parent is not a requirement for one to be a "good" person. And, in fact, people who are able to find joy and meaning in other things are doing more for the planet than you are.
You back-pedaled a little, yes, I know. But this is what editing is for. Have the thought. Go on hating that book (Beyond Motherhood). But then realize that stating these opinions is counterproductive before publishing it in this book that is supposed to support people in making the decision to have less children. And less must sometimes (or as often as possible, in my opinion) mean none.
PS. Don't you think it's selfish that the only thing you can care about more than yourself (the thing that supposedly makes you un-selfish) is yourself reconstituted?
January 6, 2011
An excellent and compelling argument about the need to reduce population for environmental reasons, McKibben goes into a thorough analysis of the elements behind his argument that people in the U.S. should considering having one or fewer kids. I thought the most interesting part of the book was the first part where he talks about the myth that only children are spoiled and unsocialized. He looks into the history behind that stereotype, and he reveals research that shows the only children are in fact better socialized given that they haven't had to claw their way up among their siblings.
I was surprised that, in his argument that legal immigration quotas should be lowered, he didn't go anywhere near the fact that immigration has surged because of American foreign trade and business policies. He didn't even mention undocumented immigration or NAFTA. I can understand why he might stay away from this issue in the interest of reaching a wider audience and staying focused on his environmental goals. However, the fact that so many immigrants have no way to sustain themselves in their home countries because of the "first world's" demand for more and more and more cheap stuff seems to fit in quite well with the rest of his argument.
The last section of the book veered off a bit. I felt like he was implying that adults who choose not to have children were selfish and that people who choose to have children are not selfish. I wish this were the case. He also was wishy-washy and backpeddled his way around the issue by saying, briefly, at the end that, of course, adults can mature and experience true growth without having children. Well, yes. Duh. Unfortunately, having children is no guarantee that the parents will actually mature or grow into better people. If that were the case, would we have so many of the problems that we do today?
So, overall, an excellent read, and a fantastic resource for reading more about the issue.
I was surprised that, in his argument that legal immigration quotas should be lowered, he didn't go anywhere near the fact that immigration has surged because of American foreign trade and business policies. He didn't even mention undocumented immigration or NAFTA. I can understand why he might stay away from this issue in the interest of reaching a wider audience and staying focused on his environmental goals. However, the fact that so many immigrants have no way to sustain themselves in their home countries because of the "first world's" demand for more and more and more cheap stuff seems to fit in quite well with the rest of his argument.
The last section of the book veered off a bit. I felt like he was implying that adults who choose not to have children were selfish and that people who choose to have children are not selfish. I wish this were the case. He also was wishy-washy and backpeddled his way around the issue by saying, briefly, at the end that, of course, adults can mature and experience true growth without having children. Well, yes. Duh. Unfortunately, having children is no guarantee that the parents will actually mature or grow into better people. If that were the case, would we have so many of the problems that we do today?
So, overall, an excellent read, and a fantastic resource for reading more about the issue.
July 29, 2008
I would give this three and a half, if I could. It was an emotionally difficult book to read, especially the large section on the environment. Especially considering that it was written ten years ago and so much is so much worse.
A quote that stuck out like a sore thumb: "If gasoline cost $2.50 a gallon, we'd drive smaller cars, we'd drive electric cars, we'd take buses - and we'd elect a new president." Golly gee, that sure didn't happen...
So maybe Bill McKibben didn't get everything quite right, I still trust him. And I learned a lot. Like this: "When the United States was founded, each congressman took care of 30,000 voters. Now [in 1998, when the population was approx. 270,000] he or she has 570,000 constituents, a twentyfold dilution. When we are 400 million, each 'representative' will represent a million of us."
The US population is now over 300 million.
Parts of the book are scary and depressing. Global warming has become so much more real to me in the last year, and sometimes I wish (stupidly) that I could reinsert my head into the sand.
McKibben takes care not to judge large families. I never was made to feel like I shouldn't exist because I'm a third child.
I did wonder why he didn't talk about adoption as another way to raise a large family.
The first section, about misconceptions regarding only children, could have been much better. The last section, in which McKibben discusses the personal and spiritual ramifications of small families, is marvelous.
All things considered, I really need to read a chick lit novel next.
A quote that stuck out like a sore thumb: "If gasoline cost $2.50 a gallon, we'd drive smaller cars, we'd drive electric cars, we'd take buses - and we'd elect a new president." Golly gee, that sure didn't happen...
So maybe Bill McKibben didn't get everything quite right, I still trust him. And I learned a lot. Like this: "When the United States was founded, each congressman took care of 30,000 voters. Now [in 1998, when the population was approx. 270,000] he or she has 570,000 constituents, a twentyfold dilution. When we are 400 million, each 'representative' will represent a million of us."
The US population is now over 300 million.
Parts of the book are scary and depressing. Global warming has become so much more real to me in the last year, and sometimes I wish (stupidly) that I could reinsert my head into the sand.
McKibben takes care not to judge large families. I never was made to feel like I shouldn't exist because I'm a third child.
I did wonder why he didn't talk about adoption as another way to raise a large family.
The first section, about misconceptions regarding only children, could have been much better. The last section, in which McKibben discusses the personal and spiritual ramifications of small families, is marvelous.
All things considered, I really need to read a chick lit novel next.
August 9, 2016
Lovely, cogent, and personal. He tries to advocate for a cultural shift to having one child in a gentle way, unpacking biases about only children, addressing religious motivations for having multiple children, explaining why it would be better for the planet in the long run if the U.S. population went to about 230 million. I love that he shows his wrestling with the complexity of these thoughts-- with immigration, with the resources someone in the U.S. tends to consume vs. someone in another country. I also love his commitment to freedom, to never let a draconian law be passed (still giving a certain benefit of the doubt to China - saying perhaps they faced real famine, while examine the negative consequences of the law). Instead he attempts to persuade. He doesn't address everything, but he brings his careful research, and clear headed thinking to everything he does discuss. Plus, he tells you about his vasectomy in great detail in order to start rendering those conversations less taboo. Cheers to that.?
June 18, 2012
I liked this book, and I think it made a very convincing case about having smaller families. It's not at all invasive, it's just saying that maybe it would be good if more Americans had single-child families... given the world's population problems. McKibben works to break-down the biases against only children, talks about concerns like Social Security and caring for the elderly (and how to change how we conceptualize old age), changing US lifestyles, and population issues more broadly. He talks about his personal decision to have a vasectomy.
I had a hard time with his discussion about immigration though. He didn't acknowledge at all the role of the US and US-policies in creating conditions in developing countries which cause people to migrate. Also, limiting immigration wouldn't stop illegal immigration from occurring. This was my main problem with the book, but otherwise, I thought it was well worth the read.
I had a hard time with his discussion about immigration though. He didn't acknowledge at all the role of the US and US-policies in creating conditions in developing countries which cause people to migrate. Also, limiting immigration wouldn't stop illegal immigration from occurring. This was my main problem with the book, but otherwise, I thought it was well worth the read.
February 24, 2012
I wanted to be more fired up about only having one child after reading this book, but I really wasn't. McKibben made some good arguments, but he wasn't as impassioned as I thought he was going to be. He kept weaseling out of his arguments by saying, "well, this isn't for everybody." Though I agree that having one child (or no children) is a personal choice that shouldn't be mandated by anyone, c'mon! You're writing a book about how Americans choosing to have one child will help the planet. Be more assertive! Also, the book was written in 1998, so the statistics were a bit dated. I would recommend reading the book for the ideas presented, but don't go to it for the latest statistics on climate change.
I did, however, really love that he touched on aging, how we need to redefine growing older, and how older people contribute to society.
Overall, not as substantive as I would have liked, but a thought-provoking read.
I did, however, really love that he touched on aging, how we need to redefine growing older, and how older people contribute to society.
Overall, not as substantive as I would have liked, but a thought-provoking read.
May 29, 2009
The first and last chapters of this book were especially interesting; the author delved into myths and research about only children, and discussed parents' decision making processes and their motivation as they decided whether to have more than one child. The rest of the book focused mainly on environmental and population issues, which are intriguing too, and areas the author is brave to tackle as it's rare to read anyone who is willing to come out and say we need to have fewer children in order to save our planet. However, since the book is more than ten years old, much of the references felt dated - a positive state of affairs, really, since hopefully that means we're making progress - but I would be interested to read an updated version of the book, or the next chapter in this author's research.
November 20, 2010
I think this is a nice addition to my environmental shelf, as it explores some of the issues with the population explosion that's currently responsible for basically all of our environmental issues. He is thoughtful on most parts of this topic, and is one of the few environmental authors prepared to address religion in a respectful manner. But I agree with other reviewers--the decision not to have kids is not necessarily selfish, just as the decision to have a kid (or multiple) is not necessarily selfless. So he really missteps in those passages. It's also rather depressing to read this 10+ years later and see that *nothing has changed.* What, Social Security didn't fix itself in the meantime?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews