Rob In Madison writes:

The popular environmental movement (not talking about deep ecology here) has still taken the individualist culture for granted. The acts we tend to look to in order to be green are individual acts -- recylcing, driving less, using a cloth bag -- whatever. But any real change can't be done through individual acts alone.

This came up for me shortly after reading an article suggesting that not having kids was one of the best environmental decisions you could make. My wife and I, at the time, had a son who had just passed away. The thought (to me) that him dying was in some way a plus for the environment was unthinkable. And I recognized that this was all driven by the assumption that the only way we could improve our environment was through individual acts.

I hope this isn't seen as off topic, because to me it's the same impulse driving this: in our culture, there really isn't a choice between guilt and innocence on our relationship with the natural world. As much as stripping away the bad in ourselves is an important act, I believe that it is even more important to help in building a culture of justice.

Condolences to Rob.

This got me thinking. Among those who want kids, is there an environmentalist case for adoption? Obviously, I don't mean in terms of mandates or even over-suggestion, but just in terms of the logic of the thing.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.