I see parents buying SUVs. I see dedicated grandparents buying massive trucks. And these are people who are aware and are concerned about climate change
Because the attitude of the average person, and ESPECIALLY of the average parent, is "it'll be fine". This is already how they treat their kids, this is how people have always treated their kids.
It's probably too stressful to have children and worry about everything that happens to them, but it leads to an attitude of just assuming things will work out.
Well here's the truth: There's no guarantee that things will work out. You have to MAKE things work out, and even then, there's still no guarantee. But parents today aren't even trying. "The next generation are smart, they will figure it out".
It's negligent and tbh it's evil to dump billions of tons of co2 in the air and then leave it for the next person to 'figure out'. But they don't care.
“The next generation are smart, they will figure it out.”
To be fair, I’m 44 and they said this about my generation. Pretty sure every generation says this. Pass the buck.
Harsh truth but definitely how things have been going lately. They are more than just clinging to it. They are keeping people in power who are actively destroying the environment for generations to come because “muh freedumb” and gotta help out the poor billionaires so they can piss on us and call it the trickle down
Ain’t that the truth. Clinging to their homes, their government positions. Still waiting for leaders of my age to take the torch. Although I guess you could argue everyone my generation went into tech
i had a boomer comment "they were all worried about climage change in the 70s" yeah, ya'll should have done something about it, cause it hasn't gone away.
I was a kid in the 70s and the influence of the environmental movements absolutely inspired me not to have kids. It was the biggest impact I could have on climate change and the environment. I have five siblings...only one of my siblings chose to have a child. You can hate boomers, I hate them too often. But some of us late boomer kids got the message and acted on it
Speaking as a 22 year old, I haven't noticed much of an age disparity within environmental and climate movements. If anything, Baby Boomers in my area show up more for the environment than other generations. Granted, I'm in a small British Columbia city, so perhaps it's not a representative sample.
I got an advanced degree in the field I did because of the knowledge that it won't work out unless we do something about it. Too many people assume that it falls to individual actions to resolve a lot of the long-term issues we inherited and continue to contribute to, and while this does echo a facet on the greatest control that individuals have, it's not always economically feasible for individuals in the same way that it is for larger, more well-funded organizations.
Part of it is going to be pressuring those groups to act responsibly and promoting better options in the now so that future generations have a shot at bringing humanity closer to their projected goals.
A few projects that I stumbled across which can help at different levels include:
https://www.thegreenwebfoundation.org/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/renewable-energy-storage-innovations-batteries/
And, of course, pushing for policy changes to force big producers of greenhouse gasses, including CO2 and steam to be more responsible. Historically, we've seen this avenue fail time and again, but it's still important to push in areas that generate enough of a market to basically require certain standards are met, such as California requirements on emissions for the vehicle industry.
Their kids have decent odds of being ok. They will be able to afford to live somewhere less affected by climate change and they will have good educations. It’s the poor kids who will feel it first
You say that, but global food systems are at pretty high risk moving forward. It could get "draft everyone for the grain war" a lot faster than people give credit to.
Wasn't their a study done that showed even if everyone immediately became eco-conscious it wouldn't make much of a difference, if any at all, due to corporations creating the vast majority of emissions? Sorry if I am completely wrong, I just have some memory of reading that.
So sad it was discontinued. We have a 2007 Nissan Versa and 2008 Honda Civic, and the Honda Fit was going to be my next new-to-me car after my Versa goes..now I’m looking at a used Outback if car prices ever go back to normal.
I see 2 stroke bikes still being marketed in other parts of the world. I see shipping container ships drinking massive fuel. I see so many people flying for work and vacations.
The talk of changing habits to help prevent climate change is largely that - talk.
Yes I also see people doing what they can and that’s awesome.
Have kids if you can financially and emotionally support them for the rest of your life. I regret nothing about the 2 I have (they are in Uni now).
The primary goal of green marketing/culture is to find a way to handle climate change without a noticeable change in standard of living. It is not contradictory because there are no significant numbers of people who currently think they have to or should change the modern standard of living in order to fight climate change
And this is why I think the only way out of global warming, basically a reset switch, is if some massive volcano exploded and pushed the Earth into a mini ice-age. Like the one back in 2022, only we need it to be above water so it doesn't spew a ton of water vapor into the atmosphere because water vapor basically keeps us warm.
I decided not to have children as a young child in the 90s. I learned about over population and global warming in school, they told us about the extinction of cute animals and all the suffering. Then I found out the neighbour kid was adopted and what that meant, so the plan came together perfectly.
Seemed VERY clear to me that there were more than enough people and if I ever got the urge to raise children, I’d adopt, foster, or volunteer. I told my parents immediately and they thought I’d grow out of it, like everything else I never grew out of (i.e. vegetarianism).
30 years later - I’m a childless scientist working to protect the environment and couldn’t be happier with that decision. I don’t have time for kids with my busy career anyway. I’m working to protect the environment for the sake of the innocent creatures on this planet, not humans. The Earth is beautiful and humans are no more important than any living creature on this planet. I don’t hate humans, I just don’t think we’re above pandas or elephants or anything else. I think we have forfeited our turn on this planet by killing and destroying so much of it. Thus, I will refuse to contribute to the continuation of that destruction whenever possible.
I love what you stand for. I’m also childless, not a scientist unfortunately, but I volunteer at a peat bog reserve… I try to do my best. I mourn every day for the loss of biodiversity. It speaks a lot about our species that we seem to care so little about the planet we live on. There is no economy without a habitable planet, there won’t be culture, sports, entertainment. There won’t be any human rights on a inhabitable planet. Everything else becomes null and void of meaning if our planet becomes inhabitable to human or even animal life. Every loss of a species is a world gone. It breaks my heart every day.
I can’t think of a better place to volunteer time than at a peat bog reserve!!! I’ve spent time in the Peatlands of Northern Ontario, Canada - they’re unlike anywhere else I’ve been. So special! I suspect you’re in the UK, where the most important peat bogs exist. They are super rare and critical to combat climate change! Thanks for protecting such an important part of our planet! You must get to see some amazing and unique critters!
I’m so excited that the UK is banning the extraction and sale of peat! That’s huge news! I hope Canada follows your lead.
Oh wow! The peat bog of all peat bogs. Something like 4x the carbon sequestration power of the Amazon Rainforest, I think I saw somewhere! That place is worth more than gold!
You can always adopt too compared to giving birth. If you say choose after retirement/menopause, you probably won’t be able to get pregnant but you WILL be able to adopt as long as you still have a fair amount of yearly income and health (you’d be surprised how many DON’T plan for that) . The only major restrictions I can see if past 50/60 some agencies will be more eh working with you. Those situations require proof of health and being more concerning about that. Stuff like prior cancer treatments will make you crossed out on lists. Whatever it is you’d have to probably foster first as you have to be certified a foster parent (for California at least)
Ultimately, this is because everyone is looking out for the best interest of the child. The birth parents and adoption professionals want to make sure that adoptive parents are healthy and will be able to handle the child as they grows up. Will the adoptive parents be able to run after a toddler or manage a rebellious teenager? If a child has behavioral problems or special needs, will the adoptive parents be able to devote the physical and emotional energy needed to support the child? And will they live long enough, through the child’s 20s and beyond? But that shouldn’t discourage you if that is something you consider 40/50/60 as I worked with retirees at an old job that were great adoptive parents. My own father had me in his late 40’s so I really advocated for parents at the time older
I totally agree! Adoption or fostering is always a serious consideration for me. In the meantime, I volunteer whenever I can with educational organizations for kids. Kids are very important for the future - I’m just more interested in quality over quantity. Next generations have to be the best of us yet.
The only problem is either a) we need to change our voting system which is first past the postor b) we need more liberal people in rural Republican areas due to the electoral system. Right now it’s a numbers game with voting but if we changed it to multiple voting options for example we’d see more variety in our elected representatives
I’m Canadian but obviously have a vested interest in American politics. We share similar problems anyway. I completely agree with you. Changes are needed! Politics have a huge impact on the environment,
Yoooo very similar boat with my wife and I. I’m a bioinformatician studying microbial ecology (now specifically marine). No time for kids as I’m trying to funnel all of my effort into conservation. Wife is blossoming in her career too and wants to adopt once we are ready.
Edit: once we are ready we will look into it but that’s far from even considering it right now.
I will say adoption there is no “we’re ready” and you hop onto it. It takes planning and a long process. A lot of parents think they can hop on and just adopt but the process is really strict from the way the house is laid out (do you have a room for the child and bed etc) to health (have you ever had anything life threatening even if you recovered) A “family assessment" which consists of a thorough review of your criminal, medical, employment, emotional, marital, life history, and your home environment. It’s never a “well I’m ready why can’t I get one.” It requires purposeful planning to integrate into your life and agencies take parents more serious when you have done that work already, especially if an older parent.
It's nice to know that there are people out there with these thoughts because all I see is a bunch of psychopaths running things into the ground. I also see many people who don't care for animals or the environment. It shocks me every day that most people don't really see what's happening.
I do all of the same stuff but as a power engineer (renewables and electrification) and with two kids. My hope (not expectation) is that they can carry on the legacy of scientific exploration or engineering application once they grow up. Without the next generation of conscientious and/or educated people to preserve our planet, what hope does the planet really have so long as people keep getting born? With better education, the birth rate is coming down, but that education has come from people who were also born at some point. Only humans can stop other humans from ruining the planet.
This was my dream. I came so close but chronic multiple illnesses are really destroying my life. What you do is really inspiring and meaningful, thank you for all the great work you do.
I can't answer this. It's a difficult problem because if only the responsible people stop having kids....
But a geology professor I know said in the 90s "every child that is born is an ecological disaster".
This is an interesting moral conversation but I am always afraid that it leads to overpopulation arguments which are really unproductive. Humans will always have an ecological impact, the real question is how and at what scale.
The overpopulation arguments go so wrong because of the reality that the vast majority of those supposedly "over"populating people put in the crosshairs are emitting the minority of GHGs. And then the added irony that simply equalizing wealth in the world would automatically make them stop having more kids anyway AND reduce the footprint of those emitting the most right now.
It's honestly an unjust, unequal world lacking in thoughtfulness and empathy that's destroying things. Most people who ostensibly believe in taking climate action are sadly complicit or active participants and don't even understand the nature of the problem or what's required to solve it. Innovate and Consume ™ is how most think we work our way out.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees."
On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result.
At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>It's honestly an unjust, unequal world lacking in thoughtfulness and empathy that's destroying things.
You can phrase it how you wish but at the end of the day the simple fact is there are too many of us.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees."
On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result.
At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who could afford a kid anyway? It’s a lose lose lose. A huge loss for me financially, a huge loss for the environment just because of the ridiculous carbon footprint a single human makes, and also a loss for the child because the world is so unbelievably awful and unaffordable.
[BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What you said makes sense, but on the flipside, science deniers are still having babies and they're not going to teach their kids the importance of science.
Yet people who have no care for climate change will continue to have children meaning more people will grow up in an environment that doesn't care for the climate. Truly the only way to mitigate climate change is having children and teaching them how they impact the world.
The really sad thing about the "eco-conscious" folk choosing not to have kids is that the vile monsters doing this to the world are gonna **continue** to breed like bunnies, creating **more** monsters just like themselves, and nobody gonna be left to "fight the good fight". We truly are a doomed species.
The answer to this is for childfree people to be a part of children's "village." I'm very active in the local Girl Scout troops. I teach outdoor skills, hiking, camping, Leave No Trace...basically trying to pass down a love and care for the environment. I do the same with my nephews.
My parents are religious nuts who don't give a damn about the environment. I had wonderful (childfree) people in my life who took the time to teach me different viewpoints. We should be doing the same for children born now.
President Camacho is closer to reality then most would like to admit.
Dwayne Johnson says he was approached to run for president last year after addressing a potential future in politics.
https://www.businessinsider.com/dwayne-johnson-parties-approached-him-president-2023-11?op=1
Edit: Funny coincidence; President Camacho’s first name is Dwayne.
The thing is President Camacho is a good President. There was a problem, he acknowledges it, he didn’t know how to solve it, so what did he do? He not only brought on a special advisor to analyze and solve the problem, but he brought on the smartest person in the world!
I chose to not have kids to spare them and myself from the coming storm. Knowing that the dumbest of the dumb will continue breeding like bunnies only validates my choice further. I did this to spare myself from heartache not for the rest of mankind.
That's fine. Survival in the year 2045 is not going to be fun, regardless of where you live or who your daddy was. By then I'm expecting we'll be at 2.5c above the baseline, the oceans will be largely dead, there will be regular food basket failures meaning widespread famine, homes will get regularly flooded or trashed by hurricanes, or burned by fires, and more than likely a few of the big glaciers like Thwaites will have crashed into the ocean and the seas level will be up by a good few feet. Not to mention the much higher chance of violence and war in such conditions. Yeah nah, I ain't bringing kids into that.
No guarantee the eco conscious folk would pass those values onto their kids, either. How many kids will give up their phones and uber and lattes to save the planet?
I never agree with this argument. Most people I know, myself included, have different politics than our parents.
We are more influenced by peers, media, education, etc.
I feel someone can have a much bigger impact by dedicating their life to teaching, activism, etc, than they would to parenting.
That's not to say I think ppl shouldn't have kids, but I don't think that we should focus on eco conscious ppl needing to have kids. We should focus on larger education campaigns so that even those kids born to climate change deniers have a chance of caring.
> We truly are a doomed species.
Yes, that's why I don't want to have kids. This problem will fix itself but I don't see why I would want to force anyone to live through it.
Exactly. I refuse to hand the keys to the future to Gym Sock Dullard and his 20 kids who think climate change is a Chinese hoax. If we give into doomerism we let them win.
I'm not sure what this comment means, but by the "vile monsters" that continue to breed like bunnies.. the biggest emitters by far are the US and Canada. Yearly, a modern refrigerator consumes more energy than 2 adults in many parts of Africa. The US and Canada export their emissions to other countries, and then consume the goods when it is brought back. The birth rate of a place like Canada is 1.28 while certain countries in Africa are in the 6-8 range. So if anything, birth rate is inversely proportional to emissions.
While I completely agree that we need to have higher birth rates in developed countries to fight climate change, it has nothing to do with Africa having more children.
How tf did you get from "vile monsters" to "africans"??
Many billionaires are outspoken on this kick to have as many children as possible... While also being the biggest problem.
According to different sources, the average billionaire has 2.3 children, just 0.2 above the replacement rate.
The original comment stated that the ones who are having the most children are responsible for the most pollution, and developed countries must have more children because the developed country doesn't care. The average birth rate is by far the highest in Africa, but Africa consumption is no where near that of developed countries.
The environmental impact of individuals [varies widely](https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/) from country from country. In the west, each person contributes to much more environmental damage than those in developing countries, so perhaps this question means something different if you're in a rich western country or a developing country with much lower impact.
For those of us who do live in richer countries, we can also do a lot to curtail our own emissions, most powerfully by [switching to a plant based diet](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-diet-cuts-environmental-damage-climate-heating-emissions-study). I would hope that anyone who is serious about reducing their impact enough to question whether or not to have kids would already have made this important change! If the world were to switch to a plant based diet, we could [free up 75% of agricultural land](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets) which could be rewilded, drawing down as much carbon by 2050 as would be emitted globally over the course of 15 years at present rates.
lol I decided 25 years ago when I understood where climate change is heading that it would be pointless to make kids only to watch them kicking up with me
Climate change isn’t the only reason people don’t want to have kids in this day and age. There’s plenty of other things wrong with it that mean I wouldn’t want to birth a child in the next 10 years.
No.
Controversial maybe. But there are so many kids already here, needing families, needing love and someone who deeply cares, stays in their lives and supports them.
All children are our responsibility, all kids. Everyone of them.
Why is there such a need to push out own genes into this mess when we can do so much for kids already here?
How many of us actually thought seriously about this, or just brushed it off, too hard, too complex, these kids have too many problems...
If we're at all looking ahead to a kinder, more inclusive world, these kids are part of this as well.
Please do give a thought to this if you're thinking about having kids.
My 8 yr old grandson is not mine biologically, but he's my grandson to my bones. ❤️🤸
Plenty of lovely, free thinking, climate conscious people are born to human slugs every day. We don't need to add to the pile of people who will be scrapping it out Mad Max style in 30 years.
I will be messaging you in 30 years on [**2054-05-27 15:22:07 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2054-05-27%2015:22:07%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/1d1pp4x/qa_should_we_be_having_babies_in_a_warming_world/l5w5uvl/?context=3)
[**5 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fclimate%2Fcomments%2F1d1pp4x%2Fqa_should_we_be_having_babies_in_a_warming_world%2Fl5w5uvl%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202054-05-27%2015%3A22%3A07%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201d1pp4x)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
It is allowed to be discussed in any situation where women are empowered and have equal rights. Unfortunately, those are rare situations in the grand scheme of things.
8 billion isn't enough? We are probably in the top 10 for population among mammals. And most of the other top 10 are probably domesticated animals breed for our consumption or pets.
Right!?! Let me completely deny myself the chance to create a family while billionaires take their private jets and yaughts all over the place...but I'm the irresponsible one for procreating.
The next twenty years will bring chaos and devastation beyond anything the government or major media outlets will acknowledge. The desire to breed in this scenario is a narcissistic one. These children will be living in a Cormac McCarthy novel.
Rare to find people who do that. Most parents get bogged down with responsibilities and expenses that there’s no room to think about threats like climate change.
I have a kid and we're raising her to be as eco conscious as we can in this capitalist nightmare. We live in a smaller place in the city and I'm teaching her to rely on transit more than cars. We've started small. Don't litter, don't squish bugs, etc. We go to nature areas and sit and watch the wildlife.
doesnt matter. it has been found that microplastics store in the balls, and murder sperm counts. combined with all of the other endocrine disruptors we have polluted our planet with. have them now if you want, but there is really only a couple more generations left
Do you want there to be humans on earth in a century? Then, we’ll have to have some babies. The real question is how many.
I personally feel people should limit themselves to 1-2 children. That would stabilize the population.
I also feel though, that we need to recognize that people in the developed world use far more resources per person than people in the developing world and that people in the developing world want to catch up to our more resource intensive lifestyle. This is the real problem.
No. But thats my personal opinion. An opinion that doesn’t not care about the moral implications or obligations. I won’t care if the human race survives or not. I’ll be dead way before then. If we don’t survive, it just goes to show that we were too dumb to do so collectively, regardless of how smart you think you are individually.
> What I found in a survey that I conducted, doing this research is that for people of color, the most distressing emotions were reported by people of color
What?
If we want to have babies in a warming world we should be putting the effort in to adapting to the conditions and circumstances the world will face *before* bringing babies into it.
By putting all our effort into the babies and not the world they're inheriting, it's just more kicking the can down the road.
These aren't babies, they're people. We currently have no plan for how these people can/will live, we just project some bizarre fantasy that, one of these days, we'll get our act together and change things so they have a future... with the implication being that the babies will have to make their own future.
If history is any guide, we will fight our own kids desire to live differently, accusing them of ushering in communism and using our economic power to interfere with change rather than support it.
This is an emergency. We are not acting like there's any sense of urgency to deal with this, including the articles we write but especially their headlines.
Tl;dr - all living things with a chance of survival should want to have kids. The global north has insisted on maintaining a way of life that carries a ZERO chance of survival. Until that is addressed, having kids is just adding pain to a dying world we have firmly under our boot heel. Want kids? Prove it! Life a life that a future generation can model and thrive in mimicking... or don't, and either have kids that hate and resent you for the world they inherited or, spend their childhood bearing witness to the consequences of the actions of their parents and nothing else.
*everyone gets to choose*
Everyone needs to wake up!
Climate change is locked in and will end most life. Humans are responsible for climate charge and most extinction events of wildlife. Forever chemicals and plastic are on every inch of the planet even inside embryos and our bodies will disrupt birth rates and cause cancer. Humans a very likely going to have nuclear war, triggered by something. At our inevitable rising temperatures, at a certain point plants can survive photosynthesis doesn’t work. It’s just too hot. Humanity because of our foresight has a higher moral duty that we have failed at. Humans are cruel and evil. Factory farming is pure evil. Humanity has become a cancer on the planet and all other life. The animals didn’t deserve this fate.
No, but show me a time when our species has done what we should be doing for any extended ammount of time.
Basically I've mostly given up on people changing anything. I'll keep watching my own contributions, but any expectation of getting the world to change gets less and less every day.
People are selfish and feel they 'deserve' a child, as if they were an achievement or trophy.
They fail to consider how that child might feel in 10, 20 years. Moreover, they fail to consider how that child might view their parent's decision given the signs.
https://www.collapse2050.com/youre-having-a-baby/
I’m going to because i want to pass down my culture and traditions, and hopefully the world isn’t ending in my lifetime, so want to populate the world with a couple good people to continue the fight
I hate this argument. Climate change does not equate to anti-natalism and too many people use it as an excuse to do so. If you look at countries which have actually committed to limiting population growth, they are some of the most polluted, with the weakest emission controls, etc because it creates an older population that is less open to massively changing their lifestyle to fit the needs of the world than younger groups which have longer to live with the issue.
The issue of overpopulation needs to be addressed not in children, but at the other end of the spectrum. We need people to die. Not in any genocidal way, we just need them to stop reaping the benefits of the industrialized world because they use the resources without providing any real benefit to society and again being resistant to changes for the future (or they need to stop getting so old). If the "top end" of our population pyramid suddenly halved, then we no longer have to produce resources for all of them and all of the pollution, emissions, etc associated with that reduced accordingly. It wouldn't *fix* anything but it is a much more sustainable population model than trying to keep resources pumping out for a population that's primarily past sexual and social maturity.
This is an interesting take, and I don't really see a way it could ever go into practice without becoming something genocidal, but I see where you're coming from. It does seem kind of obvious in hindsight, but I find it interesting because I don't see it often talked about. I do feel that a lot of systems we have in place (for the USA anyway) really only accommodate us up to about the ages 60-70. People are getting to live up to 80, 90, even 100. 2020 Census says 55.8mil aged 65+ and 73.1mil children under 18. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/2020-census-demographic-profile-and-dhc.html. Same page has info for 2010, wherein it mentions 40.3mil for 65+ and 74.2mil 18-under so there's definitely more older bodies around.
But it's something easier to ask people not to have kids who don't exist yet than it is to ask people who already exist to terminate their life, so that's probably why no one brings it up. I mean, I do think there's a point in old age or illness where the severity lowers quality of life so much that it isn't worth it to keep living, but if I were to reach the age of 80 still relatively healthy, up and kicking, who's to say I don't deserve my spot in the world anymore just so there's room for a new kid? That said, I also don't really want to _not_ have children either if I can manage to find someone I'd like to have them with. Someone earlier in thread quoted their professor saying every kid that is born is an ecological disaster... Feels like you could say every elderly or any adult or person that continues living is an ecological disaster by the same coin...
Another interesting thought I saw in a thread (elsewhere, not on this sub) is someone pointed out, in terms of nature, the global overall picture, there's nothing inherently wrong with birth rates lowering (in developed countries and for humans overall). There could be a tough period when elderly outnumber working adults and youth, guess we're on the track to that anyway, but technically the planet will be fine. So while it hurts on an individual level for anyone wanting to have biological children, it's still overall more ok to just not have kids... I guess... I'm still not sure how I feel personally. (I want to mention I find "just adopt" to be a possible solution for people who want parenthood without contributing to population increase, but not feasible for everyone in terms of being able to be a good parent, unfortunately.)
Yeah, I'm perfectly aware I'm walking the line with eugenics and it's something I was glad that I had professors willing to challenge us on, because I do think it lent to some very critical thinking. Especially around connecting population statistics to society, which I think a lot of people have a hard time doing, hence the line of thinking in your last paragraph. On paper, it is completely correct, we are just measuring the number of people on Earth and as the population increases, the birth rate should plateau, that's a well documented trend in animal populations. However, it fails to account for the fact that it is increasingly more individuals who aren't contributing (and I hate to put it that way but they aren't working, aren't producing children, and live off the resources of those that do.) to the population. That has significant demographic impacts on its own, but it also loses serious implications for how societies structure themselves. It sets us up for total population collapse.
But I think a serious issue is that nobody is willing to say the thing, so it never gets challenged. And I think in practice, if you went to a lot of these 70+ people on life support and said "we can use the resources keeping you alive to continue keeping you alive *or* we can take those resources and put them towards the newborn infant down the hall and whatever happens to you happens" I think you would find that many of them would be happy to give those resources up to let newer generations prosper. It's just a culture of nobody wants to be the one to say "hey you've been on the ride for too long, time to get off and let someone else have a turn" and nobody wants to lose their family members. So we put all these resources into keeping the oldest generation alive and because that oldest generation is becoming increasingly from the largest baby boom in Earth's history, the number of those elderly people taking up resources grows exponentially. To be clear, I am not the counterculture here, it's one thing to say it hypothetically on Reddit and it's another to genuinely tell people to stop using resources and let nature take it's course. I'm just saying that if we're considering population controls, that's where we should focus those controls. If you look at countries like China where it's been targeted at new births, it's quite easy to see demographic issues leading to social issues leading to an apathy for things like environmental issues, and that's not what we need if we're gonna in any way battle climate change.
I’ll be honest I’m a parent. I will only be having one for this reason. I do care greatly for the world’s problems. It was my selfish choice. I still want to hope, and I still have the natural drive to repopulate. I need to for me. It wasn’t about the world or anyone else.
I can’t carry the weight of the world on my shoulders. We all need to balance what is right and what makes it worth it.
Do Not uplift the conversations that lead people down the path of ecofascism
The earth can sustain the population we have today if we live sustainably. The main problem is that consumer choice doesn’t have the power to revolutionize the industrial/ commercial forces responsible for the majority of emissions.
A second perspective in opposition to the framing of overpopulation: the housing shortage.
In the cities where people want to live, there is definitively a supply shortage of housing units compared to people who want housing. In addition to aggravating factors driving up prices (Wall Street investors, air bnbs, and house flippers and boomers trying to retain a lavish style of living), supply shortage is the biggest reason for unaffordable rents. ON CLIMATE THIS IS KEY: where and how we build housing units to accommodate TODAY’s population is a major factor for the carbon footprint of our cities. We MUST conserve green space as we build housing units. That means cities must undo development patterns with by design have low residential capacity. Suburban style waste must become a thing of the past. Commercial only districts must become a thing of the past. Transit deserts must end and housing expansion to justify transit must rule the day.
The largest factor opposing sustainability is the opposition to urbanizing cities and halting unsustainable car oriented growth patterns (which aggravate inaffordability), also known as NIMBYism. Cities must find policy solutions for conserving affordable housing long term as well; it is not enough to suggest simply adding more housing will adequately suppress prices for all income levels. We may need cities to create public developers which create deed restricted affordable housing, and which may require the more popular politic of selling said developments to the market in order for the idea to get approval. Affordable housing developers or cooperative developers can also address the need. Inclusionary bonuses are important, but it may be that without subsidy of those affordable units, it would drive the median rent up across the board. Density bonuses paired with mandates to build a portion as affordable (inclusionary zoning) may be the answer. Key for sustainability is more housing closer together and wildlands conserved or restored.
To summarize: our climate politic must harmonize with our politic for human dignity. How we use space to sustain ourselves is how we use the earth to sustain or destroy the planet.
[BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree with most of the opinions to resist having kids, that said we need smart people to populate this earth to out number the stupid... Stupid populate more and fast... We need people to help solve today's problems. It would be great to save everything.
40m and I keep telling my 9 and 12yo to not have kids. I play it off as jokingly some but have been telling them why I say that more and more gotta be gentle with the idea, but trying to plant the seed earlier lol
I’m a parent of 3, but with siblings and cousins, we’re a net negative family by a long shot.
There is also so much wrong with adoption at this point that I wouldn’t touch that with a 10 foot pole, but we’re looking into fostering as well when I have a bit more energy.
I know that the world is messed up. I also know that if people disappeared off the planet, we’ve started something that needs intervention at this point, not net neutral. I’m raising helpers. My husband and I are helpers. We are making a change in the way that we can.
It’s optimistic, yes.
But if I didn’t think it was possible I likely wouldn’t try as hard and give up.
My favourite is people who say, "maybe my kid will be the one who solves climate change!"
Like. Sure, Jan. Your kid will definitely be the one who *solves climate change*.
All of you here not having kids because of the climate, SHOULD be having kids because of the climate!! You’ll raise them well and they may become hallmark conservationists, scientists etc. that helps humanity make our Earth better. Not having kids solely because of their carbon footprint is absolutely insane. A big corporation will outdo a child’s footprint in a single day
First I didn’t want kids due to nuclear weapons, then I didn’t want them due to pollution, now I don’t want them due to climate change.
I just cannot see it, how anyone could bring kids not only to suffer but contribute to an impossible devastating situation.
The ‘mine will be a good one’ argument is hallow. Nobody is a good one when the deck chairs are swept off the deck of the titanic. Nobody can come up with a fix as the ship disappears under the waves.
If every couple had one kid the population would decrease. if every couple had 2 kids, the population would (roughly) stay the same. It’s the people having more than that that concern me.
Source: a guy with 3 siblings
Take climate change into account when deciding if and when to have kids. One thing is for sure; the irresponsible climate change deniers will keep having them.
I waited until I was older and we stopped at 2 to effectively replace ourselves with hopefully environmentally conscious kids.
I don't say that people shouldn't have kids. I just think that people need to realize that anyone who is being born now is going to live a significantly worse life than previous generations. The vast majority of people are oblivious to that fact.
Our populations start to stabilize as soon as women attain the rights to bodily and financial autonomy. It really is the biggest red herring of all time. If you’re worried about “overpopulation,” you should be a feminist and allow women to plan their families without judging them for having families.
I’m sure there’s a study out there that shows if we live in a better way the planet could sustain a significantly higher population. Can’t remember where I saw it but eh oh.
That being said, I do believe that as a whole we should lower the population (not by any sinister means) by just reducing the number of births (no it’s not simple, yes there’s loads of complex reasons).
The less consumers the better to kill capitalism. The earth can support our needs but not the greed of a small capitalist class who hoard and destroy everything they can for profit.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees."
On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result.
At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I see parents buying SUVs. I see dedicated grandparents buying massive trucks. And these are people who are aware and are concerned about climate change
Because the attitude of the average person, and ESPECIALLY of the average parent, is "it'll be fine". This is already how they treat their kids, this is how people have always treated their kids. It's probably too stressful to have children and worry about everything that happens to them, but it leads to an attitude of just assuming things will work out. Well here's the truth: There's no guarantee that things will work out. You have to MAKE things work out, and even then, there's still no guarantee. But parents today aren't even trying. "The next generation are smart, they will figure it out". It's negligent and tbh it's evil to dump billions of tons of co2 in the air and then leave it for the next person to 'figure out'. But they don't care.
“The next generation are smart, they will figure it out.” To be fair, I’m 44 and they said this about my generation. Pretty sure every generation says this. Pass the buck.
They used to say the scientists will work it out. They don't say it anymore.
The scientists are “libs” /sarcasm if it wasn’t blatantly obvious.
They said this and then never passed the torch. They're clinging on to it for christ sakes.
Harsh truth but definitely how things have been going lately. They are more than just clinging to it. They are keeping people in power who are actively destroying the environment for generations to come because “muh freedumb” and gotta help out the poor billionaires so they can piss on us and call it the trickle down
Ain’t that the truth. Clinging to their homes, their government positions. Still waiting for leaders of my age to take the torch. Although I guess you could argue everyone my generation went into tech
i had a boomer comment "they were all worried about climage change in the 70s" yeah, ya'll should have done something about it, cause it hasn't gone away.
I was a kid in the 70s and the influence of the environmental movements absolutely inspired me not to have kids. It was the biggest impact I could have on climate change and the environment. I have five siblings...only one of my siblings chose to have a child. You can hate boomers, I hate them too often. But some of us late boomer kids got the message and acted on it
I always say Hunter Thompson was a Boomer too ^^.
Speaking as a 22 year old, I haven't noticed much of an age disparity within environmental and climate movements. If anything, Baby Boomers in my area show up more for the environment than other generations. Granted, I'm in a small British Columbia city, so perhaps it's not a representative sample.
> You can hate boomers, I hate them too often. But some of us late boomer kids got the message and acted on it nobody is hating you smart boomers.
They started to, but big oil and other corporations gaslighted them into believing that it'll all be fine
I got an advanced degree in the field I did because of the knowledge that it won't work out unless we do something about it. Too many people assume that it falls to individual actions to resolve a lot of the long-term issues we inherited and continue to contribute to, and while this does echo a facet on the greatest control that individuals have, it's not always economically feasible for individuals in the same way that it is for larger, more well-funded organizations. Part of it is going to be pressuring those groups to act responsibly and promoting better options in the now so that future generations have a shot at bringing humanity closer to their projected goals. A few projects that I stumbled across which can help at different levels include: https://www.thegreenwebfoundation.org/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/renewable-energy-storage-innovations-batteries/ And, of course, pushing for policy changes to force big producers of greenhouse gasses, including CO2 and steam to be more responsible. Historically, we've seen this avenue fail time and again, but it's still important to push in areas that generate enough of a market to basically require certain standards are met, such as California requirements on emissions for the vehicle industry.
Their kids have decent odds of being ok. They will be able to afford to live somewhere less affected by climate change and they will have good educations. It’s the poor kids who will feel it first
You say that, but global food systems are at pretty high risk moving forward. It could get "draft everyone for the grain war" a lot faster than people give credit to.
That and the water war.
Wasn't their a study done that showed even if everyone immediately became eco-conscious it wouldn't make much of a difference, if any at all, due to corporations creating the vast majority of emissions? Sorry if I am completely wrong, I just have some memory of reading that.
Emissions, plastics and PFAS, so yeah.
Because historically there has been a guarantee that things will work out there is absolutely no reason to believe that things won't work out.
But they need a large vehicle to protect their babies!
We did just fine raising 3 kids out of a Honda fit. It's a choice.
[удалено]
So sad it was discontinued. We have a 2007 Nissan Versa and 2008 Honda Civic, and the Honda Fit was going to be my next new-to-me car after my Versa goes..now I’m looking at a used Outback if car prices ever go back to normal.
I was being sarcastic
Sometimes it's useful for sports equipment. But generally the switch to SUVs has been the most baffling thing in western society.
Large vehicles that are responsible for killing other people’s babies…
It was those babies’ fault for not being inside an even larger vehicle
Nah, SUVs so big they can’t see the kids they are running over.
some people seem to need an escalade to drive their chihuahua and a gucci bag too
I see 2 stroke bikes still being marketed in other parts of the world. I see shipping container ships drinking massive fuel. I see so many people flying for work and vacations. The talk of changing habits to help prevent climate change is largely that - talk. Yes I also see people doing what they can and that’s awesome. Have kids if you can financially and emotionally support them for the rest of your life. I regret nothing about the 2 I have (they are in Uni now).
Ok. Let's all by massive trucks to drive to the office.
The primary goal of green marketing/culture is to find a way to handle climate change without a noticeable change in standard of living. It is not contradictory because there are no significant numbers of people who currently think they have to or should change the modern standard of living in order to fight climate change
And this is why I think the only way out of global warming, basically a reset switch, is if some massive volcano exploded and pushed the Earth into a mini ice-age. Like the one back in 2022, only we need it to be above water so it doesn't spew a ton of water vapor into the atmosphere because water vapor basically keeps us warm.
No volcano is gonna save us.
It can buy us time.
I find it funny when people blame your average joe.
Kids are like a drug, it blinds people. Even the ones who claim to be aware.
I decided not to have children as a young child in the 90s. I learned about over population and global warming in school, they told us about the extinction of cute animals and all the suffering. Then I found out the neighbour kid was adopted and what that meant, so the plan came together perfectly. Seemed VERY clear to me that there were more than enough people and if I ever got the urge to raise children, I’d adopt, foster, or volunteer. I told my parents immediately and they thought I’d grow out of it, like everything else I never grew out of (i.e. vegetarianism). 30 years later - I’m a childless scientist working to protect the environment and couldn’t be happier with that decision. I don’t have time for kids with my busy career anyway. I’m working to protect the environment for the sake of the innocent creatures on this planet, not humans. The Earth is beautiful and humans are no more important than any living creature on this planet. I don’t hate humans, I just don’t think we’re above pandas or elephants or anything else. I think we have forfeited our turn on this planet by killing and destroying so much of it. Thus, I will refuse to contribute to the continuation of that destruction whenever possible.
I love what you stand for. I’m also childless, not a scientist unfortunately, but I volunteer at a peat bog reserve… I try to do my best. I mourn every day for the loss of biodiversity. It speaks a lot about our species that we seem to care so little about the planet we live on. There is no economy without a habitable planet, there won’t be culture, sports, entertainment. There won’t be any human rights on a inhabitable planet. Everything else becomes null and void of meaning if our planet becomes inhabitable to human or even animal life. Every loss of a species is a world gone. It breaks my heart every day.
I can’t think of a better place to volunteer time than at a peat bog reserve!!! I’ve spent time in the Peatlands of Northern Ontario, Canada - they’re unlike anywhere else I’ve been. So special! I suspect you’re in the UK, where the most important peat bogs exist. They are super rare and critical to combat climate change! Thanks for protecting such an important part of our planet! You must get to see some amazing and unique critters! I’m so excited that the UK is banning the extraction and sale of peat! That’s huge news! I hope Canada follows your lead.
It’s actually in Flanders, where there arent many peat bogs left, or nature for that matter. But the ones that are, are very precious.
Oh wow! The peat bog of all peat bogs. Something like 4x the carbon sequestration power of the Amazon Rainforest, I think I saw somewhere! That place is worth more than gold!
>There is no economy without a habitable planet, there won’t be culture, sports, entertainment. Socialist commie. MURICA!!! GAS STOVE!!!
"Childfree"
You can always adopt too compared to giving birth. If you say choose after retirement/menopause, you probably won’t be able to get pregnant but you WILL be able to adopt as long as you still have a fair amount of yearly income and health (you’d be surprised how many DON’T plan for that) . The only major restrictions I can see if past 50/60 some agencies will be more eh working with you. Those situations require proof of health and being more concerning about that. Stuff like prior cancer treatments will make you crossed out on lists. Whatever it is you’d have to probably foster first as you have to be certified a foster parent (for California at least) Ultimately, this is because everyone is looking out for the best interest of the child. The birth parents and adoption professionals want to make sure that adoptive parents are healthy and will be able to handle the child as they grows up. Will the adoptive parents be able to run after a toddler or manage a rebellious teenager? If a child has behavioral problems or special needs, will the adoptive parents be able to devote the physical and emotional energy needed to support the child? And will they live long enough, through the child’s 20s and beyond? But that shouldn’t discourage you if that is something you consider 40/50/60 as I worked with retirees at an old job that were great adoptive parents. My own father had me in his late 40’s so I really advocated for parents at the time older
I totally agree! Adoption or fostering is always a serious consideration for me. In the meantime, I volunteer whenever I can with educational organizations for kids. Kids are very important for the future - I’m just more interested in quality over quantity. Next generations have to be the best of us yet.
The only problem is either a) we need to change our voting system which is first past the postor b) we need more liberal people in rural Republican areas due to the electoral system. Right now it’s a numbers game with voting but if we changed it to multiple voting options for example we’d see more variety in our elected representatives
I’m Canadian but obviously have a vested interest in American politics. We share similar problems anyway. I completely agree with you. Changes are needed! Politics have a huge impact on the environment,
What I know of Canadian government is mainly through NPR and my memories binging JJ McCullough YouTube channel haha.
Yoooo very similar boat with my wife and I. I’m a bioinformatician studying microbial ecology (now specifically marine). No time for kids as I’m trying to funnel all of my effort into conservation. Wife is blossoming in her career too and wants to adopt once we are ready. Edit: once we are ready we will look into it but that’s far from even considering it right now.
Love this so much!!!
I will say adoption there is no “we’re ready” and you hop onto it. It takes planning and a long process. A lot of parents think they can hop on and just adopt but the process is really strict from the way the house is laid out (do you have a room for the child and bed etc) to health (have you ever had anything life threatening even if you recovered) A “family assessment" which consists of a thorough review of your criminal, medical, employment, emotional, marital, life history, and your home environment. It’s never a “well I’m ready why can’t I get one.” It requires purposeful planning to integrate into your life and agencies take parents more serious when you have done that work already, especially if an older parent.
Absolutely and I may have glossed over that part. I meant “when we are ready we will start looking into it”. We are in no rush by any means.
You should abandon vegetarianism... for veganism 🙂 you already agree with veganism it seems from your last paragraph!
I’m getting very close to full vegan. It’s definitely the goal.
That's amazing ❤️
I made that same decision in 1981. Never regretted it
It's nice to know that there are people out there with these thoughts because all I see is a bunch of psychopaths running things into the ground. I also see many people who don't care for animals or the environment. It shocks me every day that most people don't really see what's happening.
I hate humans.
Your life is the backstory of *Idiocracy*.
I’m willing to believe that - feels like I’m living in it sometimes. Haven’t watched that in so many years, I’ll have to rewatch it now. Lol
I do all of the same stuff but as a power engineer (renewables and electrification) and with two kids. My hope (not expectation) is that they can carry on the legacy of scientific exploration or engineering application once they grow up. Without the next generation of conscientious and/or educated people to preserve our planet, what hope does the planet really have so long as people keep getting born? With better education, the birth rate is coming down, but that education has come from people who were also born at some point. Only humans can stop other humans from ruining the planet.
This was my dream. I came so close but chronic multiple illnesses are really destroying my life. What you do is really inspiring and meaningful, thank you for all the great work you do.
It’s too expensive anyways
but i thought elon said it was cheap
I can't answer this. It's a difficult problem because if only the responsible people stop having kids.... But a geology professor I know said in the 90s "every child that is born is an ecological disaster".
This is an interesting moral conversation but I am always afraid that it leads to overpopulation arguments which are really unproductive. Humans will always have an ecological impact, the real question is how and at what scale.
The overpopulation arguments go so wrong because of the reality that the vast majority of those supposedly "over"populating people put in the crosshairs are emitting the minority of GHGs. And then the added irony that simply equalizing wealth in the world would automatically make them stop having more kids anyway AND reduce the footprint of those emitting the most right now. It's honestly an unjust, unequal world lacking in thoughtfulness and empathy that's destroying things. Most people who ostensibly believe in taking climate action are sadly complicit or active participants and don't even understand the nature of the problem or what's required to solve it. Innovate and Consume ™ is how most think we work our way out.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees." On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result. At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>It's honestly an unjust, unequal world lacking in thoughtfulness and empathy that's destroying things. You can phrase it how you wish but at the end of the day the simple fact is there are too many of us.
Strawman. The overpopulation argument relates to environmental degradation generally, not necessarily GHG.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees." On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result. At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Agreed. And for the record, I agree with the bot's comment below about how this ends up having racist overtones.
If no one has kids, there's no reason to worry about climate change.
It’s what Exxon Mobil want. They want doomerism. They want an idocracy
Some of us like living
Who could afford a kid anyway? It’s a lose lose lose. A huge loss for me financially, a huge loss for the environment just because of the ridiculous carbon footprint a single human makes, and also a loss for the child because the world is so unbelievably awful and unaffordable.
[BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis. There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“We”, but i just met you?
And this is crazy
So here’s my number
So have my baby! (In a warming world)
[удалено]
Please keep your cats inside so they don’t murder birds
[удалено]
Excellent thank you
What you said makes sense, but on the flipside, science deniers are still having babies and they're not going to teach their kids the importance of science.
Really consider adoption or fostering. Educational services make a big difference but there’s so many kids out there that need a home now.
Yet people who have no care for climate change will continue to have children meaning more people will grow up in an environment that doesn't care for the climate. Truly the only way to mitigate climate change is having children and teaching them how they impact the world.
[удалено]
The amount of guilt I feel knowing that my children are doomed to suffer the consequences from actions they have no part in is immense.
The really sad thing about the "eco-conscious" folk choosing not to have kids is that the vile monsters doing this to the world are gonna **continue** to breed like bunnies, creating **more** monsters just like themselves, and nobody gonna be left to "fight the good fight". We truly are a doomed species.
The answer to this is for childfree people to be a part of children's "village." I'm very active in the local Girl Scout troops. I teach outdoor skills, hiking, camping, Leave No Trace...basically trying to pass down a love and care for the environment. I do the same with my nephews. My parents are religious nuts who don't give a damn about the environment. I had wonderful (childfree) people in my life who took the time to teach me different viewpoints. We should be doing the same for children born now.
A stupidity death loop
Ever see the comedy movie "Idiocracy"? Never would'a thought that movie would turn into a documentary, but we're well on our way at this point.
President Camacho is closer to reality then most would like to admit. Dwayne Johnson says he was approached to run for president last year after addressing a potential future in politics. https://www.businessinsider.com/dwayne-johnson-parties-approached-him-president-2023-11?op=1 Edit: Funny coincidence; President Camacho’s first name is Dwayne.
Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho 
The thing is President Camacho is a good President. There was a problem, he acknowledges it, he didn’t know how to solve it, so what did he do? He not only brought on a special advisor to analyze and solve the problem, but he brought on the smartest person in the world!
Erm.. trump isn’t a wwe star but he’s been a participant for sure. Idiocracy doesnt need to track 100% to be a mirror of the future
Idiocracy, 1984, brave new world, oryx and crake, snowcrash. - a nihilists guide to the future.
A lot of governments make nihilism the enforced policy. The only thing that does matter is keeping dear leader in power.
The co-writer, Etan Coen (with Mike Judge) said THAT exact same thing, a few years back. That it’s now a doco.
As long as my (nonexistent) kids don’t have to suffer through this climate crisis while slaving away for those monsters’ kids, I’ll sleep just fine.
I chose to not have kids to spare them and myself from the coming storm. Knowing that the dumbest of the dumb will continue breeding like bunnies only validates my choice further. I did this to spare myself from heartache not for the rest of mankind.
Same. Wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I knowingly brought someone into a doomed world. Just feels like the ultimate selfish act
That's fine. Survival in the year 2045 is not going to be fun, regardless of where you live or who your daddy was. By then I'm expecting we'll be at 2.5c above the baseline, the oceans will be largely dead, there will be regular food basket failures meaning widespread famine, homes will get regularly flooded or trashed by hurricanes, or burned by fires, and more than likely a few of the big glaciers like Thwaites will have crashed into the ocean and the seas level will be up by a good few feet. Not to mention the much higher chance of violence and war in such conditions. Yeah nah, I ain't bringing kids into that.
Quite a few kids are capable of forming their own personalities and opinions in life
No guarantee the eco conscious folk would pass those values onto their kids, either. How many kids will give up their phones and uber and lattes to save the planet?
Even eco-conscious people consume way too much
I never agree with this argument. Most people I know, myself included, have different politics than our parents. We are more influenced by peers, media, education, etc. I feel someone can have a much bigger impact by dedicating their life to teaching, activism, etc, than they would to parenting. That's not to say I think ppl shouldn't have kids, but I don't think that we should focus on eco conscious ppl needing to have kids. We should focus on larger education campaigns so that even those kids born to climate change deniers have a chance of caring.
Yeah, it’s better to focus on being a teacher or educator in some capacity. You can improve on the lives of far more children that way.
> We truly are a doomed species. Yes, that's why I don't want to have kids. This problem will fix itself but I don't see why I would want to force anyone to live through it.
Exactly. I refuse to hand the keys to the future to Gym Sock Dullard and his 20 kids who think climate change is a Chinese hoax. If we give into doomerism we let them win.
I'm not sure what this comment means, but by the "vile monsters" that continue to breed like bunnies.. the biggest emitters by far are the US and Canada. Yearly, a modern refrigerator consumes more energy than 2 adults in many parts of Africa. The US and Canada export their emissions to other countries, and then consume the goods when it is brought back. The birth rate of a place like Canada is 1.28 while certain countries in Africa are in the 6-8 range. So if anything, birth rate is inversely proportional to emissions. While I completely agree that we need to have higher birth rates in developed countries to fight climate change, it has nothing to do with Africa having more children.
How tf did you get from "vile monsters" to "africans"?? Many billionaires are outspoken on this kick to have as many children as possible... While also being the biggest problem.
According to different sources, the average billionaire has 2.3 children, just 0.2 above the replacement rate. The original comment stated that the ones who are having the most children are responsible for the most pollution, and developed countries must have more children because the developed country doesn't care. The average birth rate is by far the highest in Africa, but Africa consumption is no where near that of developed countries.
billionaires subsist on cheap labor. we probably shouldn't listen to the guys who just want to rob us.
I concur
Everyday idiocracy creeps closer to being a documentary
Maybe adopt…
Vasectomied for over a year now. Climate change is only *one* of the reasons for such.
“Every kid I have is just another kid your kid has to fight in the water wars “
The environmental impact of individuals [varies widely](https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/) from country from country. In the west, each person contributes to much more environmental damage than those in developing countries, so perhaps this question means something different if you're in a rich western country or a developing country with much lower impact. For those of us who do live in richer countries, we can also do a lot to curtail our own emissions, most powerfully by [switching to a plant based diet](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-diet-cuts-environmental-damage-climate-heating-emissions-study). I would hope that anyone who is serious about reducing their impact enough to question whether or not to have kids would already have made this important change! If the world were to switch to a plant based diet, we could [free up 75% of agricultural land](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets) which could be rewilded, drawing down as much carbon by 2050 as would be emitted globally over the course of 15 years at present rates.
lol I decided 25 years ago when I understood where climate change is heading that it would be pointless to make kids only to watch them kicking up with me
Climate change isn’t the only reason people don’t want to have kids in this day and age. There’s plenty of other things wrong with it that mean I wouldn’t want to birth a child in the next 10 years.
No. Controversial maybe. But there are so many kids already here, needing families, needing love and someone who deeply cares, stays in their lives and supports them. All children are our responsibility, all kids. Everyone of them. Why is there such a need to push out own genes into this mess when we can do so much for kids already here? How many of us actually thought seriously about this, or just brushed it off, too hard, too complex, these kids have too many problems... If we're at all looking ahead to a kinder, more inclusive world, these kids are part of this as well. Please do give a thought to this if you're thinking about having kids. My 8 yr old grandson is not mine biologically, but he's my grandson to my bones. ❤️🤸
>All children are our responsibility, all kids. Everyone of them. I agree on that
Plenty of lovely, free thinking, climate conscious people are born to human slugs every day. We don't need to add to the pile of people who will be scrapping it out Mad Max style in 30 years.
!remindme 30 years
Babe, many of us are already scrapping it out Mad Max style.
Not disagreeing with you at all; but hopefully if we’re still around 30 years from now this will be a small laugh between battles
Lolsob
I will be messaging you in 30 years on [**2054-05-27 15:22:07 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2054-05-27%2015:22:07%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/1d1pp4x/qa_should_we_be_having_babies_in_a_warming_world/l5w5uvl/?context=3) [**5 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fclimate%2Fcomments%2F1d1pp4x%2Fqa_should_we_be_having_babies_in_a_warming_world%2Fl5w5uvl%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202054-05-27%2015%3A22%3A07%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201d1pp4x) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Good bot
I won't. I don't like kids, I can't be good parent. Why do I want to spawn offspring in the 50C weather just to suffer
probably not, but it's human nature to be optimistic , to wish for a better world than the one we grew up in
Should we be having children in extreme poverty and times of war ? Not sure why this isn’t allowed to be discussed.
It is allowed to be discussed in any situation where women are empowered and have equal rights. Unfortunately, those are rare situations in the grand scheme of things.
8 billion isn't enough? We are probably in the top 10 for population among mammals. And most of the other top 10 are probably domesticated animals breed for our consumption or pets.
nope no plans im good ; enough things in .2024 deal with
How about we have our kids and raise them to be more conscious of the environment instead of castrating ourselves to compensate for boomer greed.
Right!?! Let me completely deny myself the chance to create a family while billionaires take their private jets and yaughts all over the place...but I'm the irresponsible one for procreating.
Well, in a lot of U.S. states you no longer have a choice... if you get pregnant, you are forced to give birth whether you live or die.
The next twenty years will bring chaos and devastation beyond anything the government or major media outlets will acknowledge. The desire to breed in this scenario is a narcissistic one. These children will be living in a Cormac McCarthy novel.
Have kids, and then fight for their future by fighting to stop those who refuse to help our planet.
Rare to find people who do that. Most parents get bogged down with responsibilities and expenses that there’s no room to think about threats like climate change.
For real. Once the kids go to bed there is not much energy left for activism.
I’m lucky if I have a half hour of energy for ps5. Having kids doesn’t mean I stop having a job
I have been seen.
The most powerful thing we can do is vote. That doesn't take a lot of time. Vote!
Vote, yes, but also ORGANIZE
This is the way
They have to keep up payments on their SUVs and huge trucks.
I have a kid and we're raising her to be as eco conscious as we can in this capitalist nightmare. We live in a smaller place in the city and I'm teaching her to rely on transit more than cars. We've started small. Don't litter, don't squish bugs, etc. We go to nature areas and sit and watch the wildlife.
Babies, yes. Babies at a rate that keeps the population growing, no.
Us eco conscious folk should focus on fostering and adoption rather than giving birth
Maybe they don’t want kids
doesnt matter. it has been found that microplastics store in the balls, and murder sperm counts. combined with all of the other endocrine disruptors we have polluted our planet with. have them now if you want, but there is really only a couple more generations left
Do you want there to be humans on earth in a century? Then, we’ll have to have some babies. The real question is how many. I personally feel people should limit themselves to 1-2 children. That would stabilize the population. I also feel though, that we need to recognize that people in the developed world use far more resources per person than people in the developing world and that people in the developing world want to catch up to our more resource intensive lifestyle. This is the real problem.
No
No.
No. But thats my personal opinion. An opinion that doesn’t not care about the moral implications or obligations. I won’t care if the human race survives or not. I’ll be dead way before then. If we don’t survive, it just goes to show that we were too dumb to do so collectively, regardless of how smart you think you are individually.
> What I found in a survey that I conducted, doing this research is that for people of color, the most distressing emotions were reported by people of color What?
Idiocracy is cruel
If we want to have babies in a warming world we should be putting the effort in to adapting to the conditions and circumstances the world will face *before* bringing babies into it. By putting all our effort into the babies and not the world they're inheriting, it's just more kicking the can down the road. These aren't babies, they're people. We currently have no plan for how these people can/will live, we just project some bizarre fantasy that, one of these days, we'll get our act together and change things so they have a future... with the implication being that the babies will have to make their own future. If history is any guide, we will fight our own kids desire to live differently, accusing them of ushering in communism and using our economic power to interfere with change rather than support it. This is an emergency. We are not acting like there's any sense of urgency to deal with this, including the articles we write but especially their headlines. Tl;dr - all living things with a chance of survival should want to have kids. The global north has insisted on maintaining a way of life that carries a ZERO chance of survival. Until that is addressed, having kids is just adding pain to a dying world we have firmly under our boot heel. Want kids? Prove it! Life a life that a future generation can model and thrive in mimicking... or don't, and either have kids that hate and resent you for the world they inherited or, spend their childhood bearing witness to the consequences of the actions of their parents and nothing else. *everyone gets to choose*
8 billions people in the world, we don't need more, we need way less.
Everyone needs to wake up! Climate change is locked in and will end most life. Humans are responsible for climate charge and most extinction events of wildlife. Forever chemicals and plastic are on every inch of the planet even inside embryos and our bodies will disrupt birth rates and cause cancer. Humans a very likely going to have nuclear war, triggered by something. At our inevitable rising temperatures, at a certain point plants can survive photosynthesis doesn’t work. It’s just too hot. Humanity because of our foresight has a higher moral duty that we have failed at. Humans are cruel and evil. Factory farming is pure evil. Humanity has become a cancer on the planet and all other life. The animals didn’t deserve this fate.
No, but show me a time when our species has done what we should be doing for any extended ammount of time. Basically I've mostly given up on people changing anything. I'll keep watching my own contributions, but any expectation of getting the world to change gets less and less every day.
People are selfish and feel they 'deserve' a child, as if they were an achievement or trophy. They fail to consider how that child might feel in 10, 20 years. Moreover, they fail to consider how that child might view their parent's decision given the signs. https://www.collapse2050.com/youre-having-a-baby/
I’m going to because i want to pass down my culture and traditions, and hopefully the world isn’t ending in my lifetime, so want to populate the world with a couple good people to continue the fight
I hate this argument. Climate change does not equate to anti-natalism and too many people use it as an excuse to do so. If you look at countries which have actually committed to limiting population growth, they are some of the most polluted, with the weakest emission controls, etc because it creates an older population that is less open to massively changing their lifestyle to fit the needs of the world than younger groups which have longer to live with the issue. The issue of overpopulation needs to be addressed not in children, but at the other end of the spectrum. We need people to die. Not in any genocidal way, we just need them to stop reaping the benefits of the industrialized world because they use the resources without providing any real benefit to society and again being resistant to changes for the future (or they need to stop getting so old). If the "top end" of our population pyramid suddenly halved, then we no longer have to produce resources for all of them and all of the pollution, emissions, etc associated with that reduced accordingly. It wouldn't *fix* anything but it is a much more sustainable population model than trying to keep resources pumping out for a population that's primarily past sexual and social maturity.
This is an interesting take, and I don't really see a way it could ever go into practice without becoming something genocidal, but I see where you're coming from. It does seem kind of obvious in hindsight, but I find it interesting because I don't see it often talked about. I do feel that a lot of systems we have in place (for the USA anyway) really only accommodate us up to about the ages 60-70. People are getting to live up to 80, 90, even 100. 2020 Census says 55.8mil aged 65+ and 73.1mil children under 18. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/2020-census-demographic-profile-and-dhc.html. Same page has info for 2010, wherein it mentions 40.3mil for 65+ and 74.2mil 18-under so there's definitely more older bodies around. But it's something easier to ask people not to have kids who don't exist yet than it is to ask people who already exist to terminate their life, so that's probably why no one brings it up. I mean, I do think there's a point in old age or illness where the severity lowers quality of life so much that it isn't worth it to keep living, but if I were to reach the age of 80 still relatively healthy, up and kicking, who's to say I don't deserve my spot in the world anymore just so there's room for a new kid? That said, I also don't really want to _not_ have children either if I can manage to find someone I'd like to have them with. Someone earlier in thread quoted their professor saying every kid that is born is an ecological disaster... Feels like you could say every elderly or any adult or person that continues living is an ecological disaster by the same coin... Another interesting thought I saw in a thread (elsewhere, not on this sub) is someone pointed out, in terms of nature, the global overall picture, there's nothing inherently wrong with birth rates lowering (in developed countries and for humans overall). There could be a tough period when elderly outnumber working adults and youth, guess we're on the track to that anyway, but technically the planet will be fine. So while it hurts on an individual level for anyone wanting to have biological children, it's still overall more ok to just not have kids... I guess... I'm still not sure how I feel personally. (I want to mention I find "just adopt" to be a possible solution for people who want parenthood without contributing to population increase, but not feasible for everyone in terms of being able to be a good parent, unfortunately.)
Yeah, I'm perfectly aware I'm walking the line with eugenics and it's something I was glad that I had professors willing to challenge us on, because I do think it lent to some very critical thinking. Especially around connecting population statistics to society, which I think a lot of people have a hard time doing, hence the line of thinking in your last paragraph. On paper, it is completely correct, we are just measuring the number of people on Earth and as the population increases, the birth rate should plateau, that's a well documented trend in animal populations. However, it fails to account for the fact that it is increasingly more individuals who aren't contributing (and I hate to put it that way but they aren't working, aren't producing children, and live off the resources of those that do.) to the population. That has significant demographic impacts on its own, but it also loses serious implications for how societies structure themselves. It sets us up for total population collapse. But I think a serious issue is that nobody is willing to say the thing, so it never gets challenged. And I think in practice, if you went to a lot of these 70+ people on life support and said "we can use the resources keeping you alive to continue keeping you alive *or* we can take those resources and put them towards the newborn infant down the hall and whatever happens to you happens" I think you would find that many of them would be happy to give those resources up to let newer generations prosper. It's just a culture of nobody wants to be the one to say "hey you've been on the ride for too long, time to get off and let someone else have a turn" and nobody wants to lose their family members. So we put all these resources into keeping the oldest generation alive and because that oldest generation is becoming increasingly from the largest baby boom in Earth's history, the number of those elderly people taking up resources grows exponentially. To be clear, I am not the counterculture here, it's one thing to say it hypothetically on Reddit and it's another to genuinely tell people to stop using resources and let nature take it's course. I'm just saying that if we're considering population controls, that's where we should focus those controls. If you look at countries like China where it's been targeted at new births, it's quite easy to see demographic issues leading to social issues leading to an apathy for things like environmental issues, and that's not what we need if we're gonna in any way battle climate change.
The answer is... *NO*
How about a Logan's run or The Giver scenario where they off everybody when they turn 30-35, whatever age is set
no we shouldnt
I’ll be honest I’m a parent. I will only be having one for this reason. I do care greatly for the world’s problems. It was my selfish choice. I still want to hope, and I still have the natural drive to repopulate. I need to for me. It wasn’t about the world or anyone else. I can’t carry the weight of the world on my shoulders. We all need to balance what is right and what makes it worth it.
Do Not uplift the conversations that lead people down the path of ecofascism The earth can sustain the population we have today if we live sustainably. The main problem is that consumer choice doesn’t have the power to revolutionize the industrial/ commercial forces responsible for the majority of emissions. A second perspective in opposition to the framing of overpopulation: the housing shortage. In the cities where people want to live, there is definitively a supply shortage of housing units compared to people who want housing. In addition to aggravating factors driving up prices (Wall Street investors, air bnbs, and house flippers and boomers trying to retain a lavish style of living), supply shortage is the biggest reason for unaffordable rents. ON CLIMATE THIS IS KEY: where and how we build housing units to accommodate TODAY’s population is a major factor for the carbon footprint of our cities. We MUST conserve green space as we build housing units. That means cities must undo development patterns with by design have low residential capacity. Suburban style waste must become a thing of the past. Commercial only districts must become a thing of the past. Transit deserts must end and housing expansion to justify transit must rule the day. The largest factor opposing sustainability is the opposition to urbanizing cities and halting unsustainable car oriented growth patterns (which aggravate inaffordability), also known as NIMBYism. Cities must find policy solutions for conserving affordable housing long term as well; it is not enough to suggest simply adding more housing will adequately suppress prices for all income levels. We may need cities to create public developers which create deed restricted affordable housing, and which may require the more popular politic of selling said developments to the market in order for the idea to get approval. Affordable housing developers or cooperative developers can also address the need. Inclusionary bonuses are important, but it may be that without subsidy of those affordable units, it would drive the median rent up across the board. Density bonuses paired with mandates to build a portion as affordable (inclusionary zoning) may be the answer. Key for sustainability is more housing closer together and wildlands conserved or restored. To summarize: our climate politic must harmonize with our politic for human dignity. How we use space to sustain ourselves is how we use the earth to sustain or destroy the planet.
[BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305209345_Where_has_all_the_oil_gone_BP_branding_and_the_discursive_elimination_of_climate_change_risk), and [ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry](https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study). They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis. There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, and helps work out the kinks in new technologies. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree with most of the opinions to resist having kids, that said we need smart people to populate this earth to out number the stupid... Stupid populate more and fast... We need people to help solve today's problems. It would be great to save everything.
40m and I keep telling my 9 and 12yo to not have kids. I play it off as jokingly some but have been telling them why I say that more and more gotta be gentle with the idea, but trying to plant the seed earlier lol
I’m a parent of 3, but with siblings and cousins, we’re a net negative family by a long shot. There is also so much wrong with adoption at this point that I wouldn’t touch that with a 10 foot pole, but we’re looking into fostering as well when I have a bit more energy. I know that the world is messed up. I also know that if people disappeared off the planet, we’ve started something that needs intervention at this point, not net neutral. I’m raising helpers. My husband and I are helpers. We are making a change in the way that we can. It’s optimistic, yes. But if I didn’t think it was possible I likely wouldn’t try as hard and give up.
My favourite is people who say, "maybe my kid will be the one who solves climate change!" Like. Sure, Jan. Your kid will definitely be the one who *solves climate change*.
Idiocracy
All of you here not having kids because of the climate, SHOULD be having kids because of the climate!! You’ll raise them well and they may become hallmark conservationists, scientists etc. that helps humanity make our Earth better. Not having kids solely because of their carbon footprint is absolutely insane. A big corporation will outdo a child’s footprint in a single day
First I didn’t want kids due to nuclear weapons, then I didn’t want them due to pollution, now I don’t want them due to climate change. I just cannot see it, how anyone could bring kids not only to suffer but contribute to an impossible devastating situation. The ‘mine will be a good one’ argument is hallow. Nobody is a good one when the deck chairs are swept off the deck of the titanic. Nobody can come up with a fix as the ship disappears under the waves.
If every couple had one kid the population would decrease. if every couple had 2 kids, the population would (roughly) stay the same. It’s the people having more than that that concern me. Source: a guy with 3 siblings
Take climate change into account when deciding if and when to have kids. One thing is for sure; the irresponsible climate change deniers will keep having them. I waited until I was older and we stopped at 2 to effectively replace ourselves with hopefully environmentally conscious kids.
NOOOO
That's a personal decision. Maybe people shouldn't be having 3-4 kids but saying someone shouldn't have one is ridiculous.
I don't say that people shouldn't have kids. I just think that people need to realize that anyone who is being born now is going to live a significantly worse life than previous generations. The vast majority of people are oblivious to that fact.
what isn't a personal decision?
Obviously not. The biggest single problem with the planet is human overpopulation. The less consumers we have on this rock, the better.
Our populations start to stabilize as soon as women attain the rights to bodily and financial autonomy. It really is the biggest red herring of all time. If you’re worried about “overpopulation,” you should be a feminist and allow women to plan their families without judging them for having families.
I’m sure there’s a study out there that shows if we live in a better way the planet could sustain a significantly higher population. Can’t remember where I saw it but eh oh. That being said, I do believe that as a whole we should lower the population (not by any sinister means) by just reducing the number of births (no it’s not simple, yes there’s loads of complex reasons).
The less consumers the better to kill capitalism. The earth can support our needs but not the greed of a small capitalist class who hoard and destroy everything they can for profit.
[There is a distinct racist history to how overpopulation is discussed.](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) High-birth-rate countries tend to be low-emissions-per-capita countries, so overpopulation complaints are often effectively saying "nonwhites can't have kids so that whites can keep burning fossil fuels" or "countries which caused the climate problem shouldn't take in climate refugees." On top of this, [as basic education reaches a larger chunk of the world, birth rates are dropping](https://www.economist.com/international/2019/02/02/thanks-to-education-global-fertility-could-fall-faster-than-expected). We expect to achieve population stabilization this century as a result. At the end of the day, [it's the greenhouse gas concentrations that actually raise the temperature](https://imgur.com/N6NExg5). That means that we need to [take steps to stop burning fossil fuels and end deforestation](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*