Ensor quotes Lee Edelman in her essay about Spinster Ecology as arguing “’that politics is predicated on a reproductive futurism embodied by the figure of the child, a fact that “preserv[es] … the absolute privilege of heteronormativity‘and leaves the queer structurally outside the bounds of both politics and social belonging”. I have to agree that a lot of our politics are centered around the nuclear family, but the nuclear family is, as research has shown, the best environment for raising children. I am quoting Jane Anderson in her article “The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce”: “Nearly three decades of research evaluating the impact of family structure on the health and well-being of children demonstrates that children living with their married, biological parents consistently have better physical, emotional, and academic well-being.” There is plenty of other research out there that ought to not be ignored. I am not an expert in this area, but we should allow the extensive research to influence the politics concerning families and child rearing and support and protect the kind of environments that have proven to be the most optimal for children to flourish in. It is in the best interest of a society to make sure children have the best environment to grow up in. This does not mean that everyone needs to have children, but we do need some children to carry out the tasks necessary for a society to function in the future. Anything else is unrealistic and would eventually leave us with a average age older than 70…and then what? According to Ensor, “much recent queer theory insistently resist[s] futurity, marked….by heteronormative imperatives.” In order to develop a queer ecocriticism she suggests not to make it heteronormative, which in my understanding would deemphasize the nucleus family. However, this contradicts the research mentioned above that urges society to protect the nucleus family. It does not mean that other groups of society who are not part of this nuclear family structure are not part of the society or somehow “structurally outside the bound of both politics and social belonging”. Just because you are not part of a group in society that has the important role of guaranteeing that children have the best environment to grow up in and you might feel excluded does not mean that that group has to be deemphasized. The nucleus family has to be protected, because any couple who raises children is more vulnerable to the problems and pressures of live and also the ecological problems than a single adult or a childless couple. Wars and nuclear accidents have proven this. Having said that, a society has to give all of its groups an equal space to live and thrive, but at the same time has to protect the most vulnerable and children are definitely on the top of that list. This is exactly the message the mothers in the film “little voices from Fukushima” were sending. They were asking that society protects the most vulnerable and provides a safe environment for them to thrive in. This movie shows that it is much easier for a single person to pick up move out of a contaminated area than an entire family. Therefore, the government should especially assist families to be able to move away from danger. I agree with Ensor that it is very important to listen to all of the groups of society regarding any critical thinking or possible solutions towards our ecological crisis. The more angle we can provide on this problem the better. The angle that the queer population could bring to the table is definitely important. Their emphasis is more on the now than on the future for the sake of future generations and it could provide more urgency which is needed. As Haraway emphasis: “Nobody lives everywhere; everybody lives somewhere. Nothing is connected to everything; everything is connected to something” (p 31). She talks about tentacular thinking which invites all kinds of thinking angles from different groups and people and emphasis the necessity of such dialogue to continue our species and others on this planet. She also, just like Ensor stresses the important of seeing time not as Chronos, with a past, present and future, but as Kainos. “Kainos means now, a time of beginnings, a time for ongoing, for freshness. Nothing in Kainos must mean conventional pasts, presents, or futures” (page 2).

As far as the primacy of biological reproduction is concerned, Haraway has a slogan she promotes: “So, make kin, not babies! It matters how kin generate kin. (pg 103)” She argues that it is more important to take care of and connect with the people and other living beings that are already on this planet (which is making kin) than to make new ones or we will end up with 11 Billion by the year 2100 (pg 4). She argues for birth control methods although it is not clear to me whether she is for top-down birth control or for just promoting birth control everywhere in the world.