Support NeoGAF

[uncelestial]

NPR: http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change

Scientists warn that a catastrophic tipping point is possible in the next few decades. By midcentury, possibly before, the average global temperature is projected to rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius, the point scientists and world leaders agree would trigger cataclysmic consequences. Last year's historic Paris climate agreement falls short of preventing that, so more drastic cuts in carbon emissions are needed.

Adding to that challenge, the world is expected to add several billion people in the next few decades, each one producing more emissions.

In fact, without dramatic action, climatologists say, the world is on track to hit 4 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century, and worse beyond that. A World Bank report says this must be avoided, and warns of unprecedented heat waves, severe drought and serious impacts on ecosystems and "human systems."

Back in the classroom, Rieder puts this in less technical terms: 4 degrees of warming would be "largely uninhabitable for humans."

"It's gonna be post-apocalyptic movie time," he says.

The room is quiet. No one fidgets. Later, a few students say they had no idea the situation was so bad. One says he appreciated the talk but found it terrifying, and hadn't planned on being so shaken before heading off to start the weekend.

Still. Even given the apocalyptic scenarios: Can you actually expect people to forgo something as deeply personal as having children? To deny the biological imperative that's driven civilization?

Rieder's audience seems to want an easier way. A student asks about the carbon savings from not eating meat.

Excellent idea, Rieder says. But no amount of conservation gives you a pass. Oregon State University researchers have calculated the savings from all kinds of conservation measures: driving a hybrid, driving less, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, windows and light bulbs.

For an American, the total metric tons of carbon dioxide saved by all of those measures over an entire lifetime of 80 years: 488. By contrast, the metric tons saved when a person chooses to have one fewer child: 9,441.

And yet, when she imagines raising a child, Ferorelli says she can't help but envision the nightmare scenarios that have dogged her since she first heard the term "global warming" in elementary school.

"Knowing that I gave that future to somebody is something that just doesn't sit very well," she says.

At the New Hampshire meeting, 67-year-old Nancy Nolan tells two younger women that people didn't know about climate change in the 1980s when she had her kids. Once her children were grown, "I said to them, 'I hope you never have children,' which is an awful thing to say," Nolan says, her voice wavering. "It can bring me to tears easily."

Personally I have to admit, my girlfriend wants to get hitched and have babies in the next year and I can't shake this thought. It's paralyzing to deal with the idea that by mid-century we'll be experiencing cataclysmic consequences from climate change.

Anyway, the personal stories in this article are great, I really recommend you guys read it. I am thinking of proposing the "one and done" approach to her, that a couple in this story agreed on, where any kid beyond the first one, which you have biologically, is adopted.

What say you, GAF?

 

[Triscuitable]

Plenty of kids out there in need of homes already. Why not adopt?

 

[Foffy]

I explicitly never want children because of the climate issue.

Add potential upheaval with a second machine age and that "never" becomes a "never ever" for me.

I would consider it an awful mistake if I had a child. Perhaps the worst mistake I could ever do, and I'm not being hyperbolic.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Sure why not.

I come from a family of great swimmers, we'll do just fine

 

[Ensoul]

Plenty of kids out there in need of homes already. Why not adopt?

Because it costs a fortune to adopt.

To answer you question: Sure have as many kids as you want. I personally think this whole climate change and global warming is much to do about nothing.

 

[Rexatality]

To be honest, I'm scared for the future of my nephew. but I hope to teach him the importance of climate change and what can he do to help in the future.

I was planning to have kids, but with the way things are going, I don't know if I wanna put them into a world that is literally falling apart.

 

[Lightning_Roller]

I'm not gonna have kids. I'm not bringing a child into a world that is going to get progressively worse each year, climate wise. And it will. I rather not put a child through that.

 

[Messofanego]

Relevant Utopia scene

"Nothing uses carbon like a first-world human. Yet you created one.

Why? Why would you do that? He will produce 515 tonnes of carbon in his lifetime. That’s 40 trucks’ worth. Having him was the equivalent of nearly 6,500 flights to Paris. You could have flown 90 times a year, there and back, nearly every week of your life, and still not had the same impact on the planet as his birth had.

Not to mention the pesticides, detergents, the huge quantity of plastics, the nuclear fuels used to keep him warm. His birth was a selfish act. It was brutal. You have condemned all this to suffering. In fact, if you really cared what you’d do is cut his throat open right now."

 

[AstroNut325]

Because it costs a fortune to adopt.

To answer you question: Sure have as many kids as you want. I personally think this whole climate change and global warming is much to do about nothing.

What makes you say this? And do you have any evidence or justification to back your stance?

 

[Lightning_Roller]

Relevant Utopia scene

"Nothing uses carbon like a first-world human. Yet you created one.

Why? Why would you do that? He will produce 515 tonnes of carbon in his lifetime. That’s 40 trucks’ worth. Having him was the equivalent of nearly 6,500 flights to Paris. You could have flown 90 times a year, there and back, nearly every week of your life, and still not had the same impact on the planet as his birth had.

Not to mention the pesticides, detergents, the huge quantity of plastics, the nuclear fuels used to keep him warm. His birth was a selfish act. It was brutal. You have condemned all this to suffering. In fact, if you really cared what you’d do is cut his throat open right now."

.....

J-Jesus.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Two and through.

 

[yanipheonu]

Sigh. I mean it's real tough.

While I understand the compulsion, there is the strange irony that the good educated people who probably could teach their kids well and change things for the better are not having kids.

It's presumptuous to assume that anyone after our current time would be less happy. It's difficult for us the imagine things outside of our time. I'm sure there will be good communities that exist even in tough times. We're all decendents of those who lived through awful wars and atrocities.

Humans will survive, as will happiness.

Edit: though man, it'll be real tough explaining how previous generations fucked up so much. Like the Millennial problems times a thousand.

It's an interesting topic for a writer. An apology for future generation, born too late to do something.

 

[BriGuy]

We were leaning towards no kids regardless, but a Trump presidency sealed the deal. Our kids would have been biracial anyway, so they would not only get the shit end of the stick, but potentially beaten with it too.

 

[xxracerxx]

I personally think this whole climate change and global warming is much to do about nothing.

What?

 

[TS-08]

This mentality would basically lead to the extinction of the human race and become a self-fulfilling prophecy, wouldn't it?

 

[jph139]

We're already in the fast lane to armageddon via climate change. We're well past the point of no return without any real chance of slowing down. Limiting consumption and recycling and all that is nice but, in practical terms, the human race is essentially doomed. So in the sense that having children would contribute to climate change - completely unconcerned. We're already dead.

That being said, if the world ended tomorrow, I still wouldn't regret having lived. So in the sense of having children that will live into the apocalypse - I see the concern but not enough for it to be a factor. There's always been suffering. Your children will suffer as you did. Not overly worried.

 

[spekkeh]

If you're privileged, you probably will be fine and so will your kids.
The worst thing is you have to emigrate to Austria? There are worse things in life.

 

[Skellig Gra]

It's a personal decision. Having 1-2 children at best keeps the status quo. I'm planning on having just the 1 kid who is already here. That already reduces the overall population imprint of my family by 1.

I am also teaching my son to be a good person and to respect the environment and people of all types. So I see that as reducing the world population and adding one positive contributor.

Plenty of kids out there in need of homes already. Why not adopt?

That's a rich white person thing. You have to be wealthy and in a stable relationship for a long time for that to be an option. It's not like the animal shelter where you just go and pick out a puppy.

 

[Sulik2]

Adopt, its incredibly selfish to bring kids into the world when you know human civilization is going to crap out in their life times. Save them the suffering.

 

[Lightning_Roller]

Because it costs a fortune to adopt.

To answer you question: Sure have as many kids as you want. I personally think this whole climate change and global warming is much to do about nothing.

You won't be saying that a few decades from now when crops stop coming in and we have food shortages, along with worse storms, hurricanes and tornados. But go ahead, say it's about nothing. You'll be eating those words when mother natures says otherwise.

 

[Inferno313]

Because it costs a fortune to adopt.

To answer you question: Sure have as many kids as you want. I personally think this whole climate change and global warming is much to do about nothing.

Please enlighten us on how you got to that conclusion.

 

[Duxxy3]

Inferno is the cure.

 

[Fuzzery]

I'm optimistic that we'll come up with a good solution for climate change

 

[Inferno313]

Inferno is the cure.

Me?

 

[Darryl M R]

Climate change is one of my con reasons for deciding against kids.

The list starts off as:

Pro: Money
Con: Money

But I actually think about the affects of climate change on the quality of life for future generations. Not fun.

Speaking of adoption I had a dream last night I adopted two Middle Eastern girls--strange dream seeing how I'm only 23.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

I'm optimistic that we'll come up with a good solution for climate change

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Plenty of kids out there in need of homes already. Why not adopt?

I'm committed to adoption if/when I finally decide I want kids. I see no reason to bring an extra life into the world when so many are already abandoned and suffering.

 

[Duxxy3]

Me?

Yes.

 

[superdeluxe]

I'm doing my part, only having two children. You're welcome, Mother Earth.

 

[Triscuitable]

Because it costs a fortune to adopt.

To answer you question: Sure have as many kids as you want. I personally think this whole climate change and global warming is much to do about nothing.

It also costs a fortune to raise an infant. Or you can give a home to a child who has been denied that necessity either due to neglect or simply parents who were unable to afford the means to give them a proper upbringing.

I'm not going to say "if you can't adopt a child don't have a child", because that's barbaric and damn-near fascistic. But if you have the means, I feel it should be considered long before trying to conceive.

Also, are you serious? Because the evidence is right there in your face. Just because it gets cold during winter doesn't mean the global temperature isn't rising.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Too late!

Don't worry though GAF I'm sure one of my kids will find the solution to stop climate change.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

My two (and only) kids will come of age at just the right time to join the second or third wave of Elon Musk's Mars colonization project.


Or, you know, we could have a revolution and permanently remove from positions of power and influence climate deniers and those who profit from fossil fuels.


Also, how many of you claiming that you won't want kids are actually in a position to have any? In other words, how many of you actually have an SO where having kids is on the table?

 

[Alcoremortis]

I waffle on this a lot. But I think I have to. If we're going to have any chance of surviving possible extinction, we're going to need as many scientists and engineers as possible and I think I'm uniquely situated to pass on the appropriate genetic advantages and raise some of those.

I know that sounds like bragging and I suppose it is, but I don't see any future saviors coming from a climate-denying family that has twelve kids. We're only hurting humanity's future chances by not reproducing.

 

[superdeluxe]

That's a rich white person thing. You have to be wealthy and in a stable relationship for a long time for that to be an option. It's not like the animal shelter where you just go and pick out a puppy.

That is kind of a myth, adoptions through Fostering usually runs between 1-2 years and you don't need tens of thousands of dollars to do it. There is actually a FB page that shares photos of when kids find their forever family.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

I'll probably adopt if I can afford it.

 

[Norris1020]

Michael Stivic said the same thing on All In the Family.

 

[AlexBasch]

I wouldn't, the world is getting worse, a lot worse. Exposing a child to something like this or WW3 nuclear bombs? Fuck that, I'm not selfish.

Again, it's my own opinion, feel free to berate me or tell me you're proud of having your own kids, it's alright if it makes you happy. I would feel guilty myself, that's all.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Man, some fatalistic people here.

I don't think the world is going to end, any more than we've bombed ourselves into nuclear winter, or shelled ourselves to death with poisonous gas before that. Life finds a way. I wouldn't have more than the repopulation rate of kids anyhow (2) because it's freaking expensive.

And from a humanistic standpoint, probably the best impact I can make on the world is to raise well-adjusted kids who similarly work in their own ways to make the world a better place.

The reality is population growth in the world isn't coming from Western Europe or North America, it's the global south. You can dump condoms on them and go crazy if you're interested in having a maximal effect on curbing the population faster.

 

[weekev]

I've had 2 kids and will thoroughly educate them on the horrors of climate change. They will discover Fusion power, save the planet and everyone will be happy. I got this GAF.

 

[Audioboxer]

It's a personal decision between you and your partner. As always I would urge time and care to be taken with the commitment needed (time and financial). As for the factors involving our home, the earth, I'd say part of being human and wanting to try and enjoy what we can before we kick the bucket may well involve having a family for many. That should never be taken away, we should care for the earth alongside caring for humanities happiness. Some decisions inevitably tip somewhat to the selfish side on the "grand scale", but that is to be human. Day 0 to day death is never going to be totally selfless for anyone. It's impossible. Looking after yourself and your needs is inherently a somewhat selfish act.

We do need to do a better job of looking after the earth though... Parental restrictions just aren't the right approach. Not as a mandate. If it's your reason for not having kids, fair enough, but make sure you are being honest with yourself.

 

[Inferno313]

Yes.

 

[Darryl M R]

I wouldn't, the world is getting worse, a lot worse. Exposing a child to something like this or WW3 nuclear bombs? Fuck that, I'm not selfish.

Again, it's my own opinion, feel free to berate me or tell me you're proud of having your own kids, it's alright if it makes you happy. I would feel guilty myself, that's all.

I don't think the tone of this thread is one that would berate someone with your logic and reasoning.

"World is fucked up man. I don't want to have kids." Even if WW3 never happens its your decision

Sounds like you expect a negative response. Do people in your personal life look down on others for not having children?

 

[backflip10019]

We should be having kids... but not 17 kids and counting. When you're talking about sustainability and the planet's longevity, population will likely be the #1 key component to sustaining life.

 

[Amikami]

I always here people say they refuse to have kids in this time of imminent climate disaster but, I don't think it'll make a difference. Humanity has survived through one catastrophe after another; social, political, and climate. Our kids will be just fine likely. I don't think their general happiness will be much different from our own. They won't know a world any different. They will certainly face different struggles and a different reality but will adapt. I don't think human extinction is all that likely. A significant drop however is likely. Let's face it. Westernized and richer nations are much more well off and capable of keeping it's citizens well. It's the countries with poor infrastructure and few resources that will be most at risk, ironic since it's the richer world that has contributed quite largely to climate change. Or at least this is my understanding. I want to see a future where we take ownership to that and do something to mitigate the damage in at risk areas but I see it as highly unlikely.

To answer simply, the kids will be fine, but it's sad that we should have to subject them to a world that is less well off. It should be the other way around. The previous generation failed us and our generation isn't doing enough.

 

[Ac30]

Man, some fatalistic people here.

I don't think the world is going to end, any more than we've bombed ourselves into nuclear winter, or shelled ourselves to death with poisonous gas before that. Life finds a way. I wouldn't have more than the repopulation rate of kids anyhow (2) because it's freaking expensive.

And from a humanistic standpoint, probably the best impact I can make on the world is to raise well-adjusted kids who similarly work in their own ways to make the world a better place.

The reality is population growth in the world isn't coming from Western Europe or North America, it's the global south. You can dump condoms on them and go crazy if you're interested in having a maximal effect on curbing the population faster.

We can't dump condoms on them because the various awful religions of the world all agree on one thing - contraception is evil.

Also Nuclear war and the like is a bad comparison - we could control those. We can't control this.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

if only the dumb assholes have kids we go from fucked to super fucked so yes, if you consider yourself a scientifically literate and empathic person who wants to better the world, you should consider having a child. because that child has a higher chance of being a force for good and helping steer humanity towards fairness and progress, even if it's through something as simple as voting. of course you also have a chance of having an evil kid but that nature vs nuture and a separate conversation

 

[Flo_Evans]

I waffle on this a lot. But I think I have to. If we're going to have any chance of surviving possible extinction, we're going to need as many scientists and engineers as possible and I think I'm uniquely situated to pass on the appropriate genetic advantages and raise some of those.

I know that sounds like bragging and I suppose it is, but I don't see any future saviors coming from a climate-denying family that has twelve kids. We're only hurting humanity's future chances by not reproducing.

Your kid is going to be a theatre major

 

[Pai Pai Master]

I'm not going to give some blanket statement on what people should do with their lives, but i am making a conscious choice to not have children, and the environment has a lot to do with it. Rather than say people must do the same in order to save the world or something, all I believe is that people should consider the choice more carefully going forward.

In the end, nothing is going to stop someone from having a child if they wanted to. I do think it would be nice if adoption was much more prevalent.

 

[Media]

I had kids back when global warming was a thing, but not that big of a deal. In today's climate, I'd likely have abstained.

I love my kids, and I hope for their sake that that it's not as bad as it seems. There's not much else I can do.

 

[Divvy]

I won't be having kids for this reason, I couldn't doom a child to that kind of future.

I wish more people would reconsider their child birth plans, but there's no socially acceptable way to convince your friends to not have kids.