Many here seem to hold this opinion. That its the number of people in a country that decides how much it consumes and waste.
I would say that this is wrong.
Why? Just take the USA and greenhouse gas emissions as an example here. The US emits around 25% of the global total of greenhouse gases. But the country only has 4,5% of global population.
Lets take another example. The 35 least developed nations in the world emits less than 1% of the global total of greenhouse gases. But together they account for over 10% of the world's population.
Not satisfied? Well, lets use China (the world’s biggest polluter) and compare it with the USA. That would make it a bit more fair, don't you think? In 2008 they took the number one spot in greenhouse gas pollution from the USA. But China, still considered a developing nation, has more than 20% of the world's total population and they pretty much produces all the gadgets, clothes and other products that we, in the western world, consume. Just consider the greenhouse gas emissions that is being generated from being the world’s top manufacturing country! But if you compare China's greenhouse gas emissions with USA on a per capita basic you get completely different result. China still have a much lower per capita levels of pollution compared to USA. USA’s per capita levels are around five to six times higher than China’s.
Well if an area in a city is dirty and there is a massive amount of trash lying around doesn't necessarily equal the inhabitants as the worst environmental offenders. A study was made in Sweden a year or two ago where they investigated a poor and dirty neighborhood with a much richer but more clean neighborhood. The results showed that the inhabitants in the rich area had a much higher ecological footprint, higher CO2 emissions and they generated a much higher amount of trash. The difference was that their trash was cleaned up and taken away to another area (most likely taken close to the poor people's area). They also could afford to drive around in expensive but gas-guzzling cars, buy expensive meat and exotic food with a high CO2 footprint and so on.
This might be a bit too personal. But may I ask if you would consider adopting instead of giving birth to two children?
I think someone wrote a book about this, ah yes it was called Rainbow 6. Seriously though saying we need to stop people from producing does smack of racism because you immediately thought of the 3rd world where they are already suffering from the organic movement (no pesticides mean more malaria) rather than say the 1st world which has done more to ruin the enviroment then any 3rd world country. There are fish enduring sex changes though to all the women in 1st world countries trying to beat back hot flashes with estrogen pills. Most of those new cars coming online every year are in 1st world countries. And of course there are many fertility clinics and treatments in the 1st world leading to miracles like octomom.
Stepping away from that I have to say that presenting your stance like this is what generally turns people away from the conversation. If the Green movement is going to be seen as more than a bunch of hippies or lunatic treehuggers it might help to be diplomatic or at least tactful. It might also help to realize that changing the minds of that many people requires time and patience rather than what seems like an unending river of negativity and demands.