Support NeoGAF

[Skinpop]

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.

always this crap. it's no more logical to say that it's selfish to have children than it is selfish to continue being alive. if you want to be consistent with that view then killing yourself as soon as possible is the only unselfish choice.

if we can't solve this problem and continue having children then there is no point to it at all, we might as well have a global mass suicide and end it all now. so offer solutions instead, like make sure your child will be a positive force for the environment. At least that's leading with good example and something that has the power to inspire other people.
this doom and gloom stuff is why so many won't listen and rather live in denial than face the truth.

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.

if something awful happened tomorrow, like Armageddon-levels of awful, would you regret having been born?

 

[HawksWinStanley]

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."

 

[Beer Monkey]

Free sterilization is a good start.

 

[Goldenroad]

That seems like a weird take. Why do anything to make the world better then if you're not concerned with leaving behind a better planet for the next generation?

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

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.

Don't you dare suggest Africa is in need of population control.
It really bugs me how people are already blaming Africa for overpopulation. How about keeping Asia and the rest of the developed/developing world in check. Africa is the last continent (next to AUS) you should even consider overpopulation control for.

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

Its unethical to bring children into a world with the new Toblerone bar shape.

 

[Croatoan]

how would the world be completely uninhabitable if temperatures climbed 4 degrees? Lets pretend that claim is true, which most scientists and their research that I have read claim only portions of the earth would be uninhabitable at that temperature, if your average summer temperature is 90 and that changes it 94 how does that change so much that we cannot live on earth any more?

These projections also don't take into account the steps we can take to use technology to cool the earth.

Yeah, we could do absolutely nothing and the equator would be fucked, crops would fail in the south and if heat resistant ones could not be bred then we would have to hope they can be migrated north, and billions of people would die due to lack of food and heat, but we are not DOING nothing.

Yeah, Trump winning sucks for US climate change policies, but other countries will forge forward. What idiot denialists don't understand is that there is massive money to be made in renewable energies, and massive gains to QOL regardless of whether it helps the climate or not.

The research is being done, and the technologies are being developed that can get us out of this mess. Yet all I see are doom and gloom articles and people screaming "We are so fucking dead, don't have kids!"

If liberals stop having kids then the world will become a complete right wing/religious nut house because they will continue to breed. Not having kids is tantamount to giving up.

 

[Empty]

would quite like (in future) to adopt orphans from a country like bangladesh (will be largely underwater in a hundred years displacing nearly 100m people) but i think this is considered a little embarrassing in a madonna kind of way. but i don't care, if i could convince a future partner i'd like to do it.

reasons: i agree that it is morally questionable to put more strain on a world with declining resources but increasing population. however in my country (uk, but similar story for many western countries) the modern declining birth rate means we have an ageing population and narrowing tax-base with fewer working age costs and huge pension, healthcare and social care costs that makes supporting the kind of social democratic society i want increasingly challenging. i don't think it helps to perpetuate that trend.

 

[LincolnSixEcho]

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.

That's your opinion and all, but it has nothing to do with today's reality.

Me and my wife wanted to limit to two kids. Third one was accidental. I've had a vasectomy since then, so no more kids from us. I'm glad we had the third one, because she's such a sweetheart. But the future our children will face can keep me up at night.

I'm strongly considering an electric vehicle as my next daily driver. I'd love to go solar for the house, but I don't think the lease type deals are for me, and purchasing them still seems very costly.

 

[Duxxy3]

Forced sterilization is a good start.

Fixed for the most likely scenario.

 

[digdug2k]

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.

The cost of adoptions range a lot. If you're looking at a happy western race-of-your-choice USA baby, yeah. If you adopt an older kid out of foster care, it can be relatively cheap (or even free).

 

[Ermc_G6]

Few scattered thoughs, nothing too coherent:

I don't know if we should should start encouraging people to not have children. For those who want them, children are a huge part of life and gives meaning to existence. But, there are too many people on the planet, we need to find a balance.

The best way to have a low national birth rate is to provide education to women. It's been shown that counties that invest in education have lower birth rates.

I think there needs to be a better understanding of the global impact all of our individual choices make.

For those who want a large family, I would encourage them to look into adoption if possible. There are so many children already born that need a loving home.

 

[Hyun Sai]

That's the lazy way. The good way is to have kids (or adopt them) and teach them how to make the world a better place.

Spoiler :

Spoiler

It's fucking hard

 

[FunkyMunkey]

not having a child because of the sole reason "the world is in bad shape and will be worse" is like not voting because of how bad things are. all it does is leave the dumb and passionate people having 8 kids while your own positive thoughts and beliefs that actually could help the world, no matter how small, are lost in time instead of carried over and propagated

 

[Prophet Steve]

I am not someone that wants to have children, but I think this is a bad reason to not have them. The solution towards helping new generations should not be to not have them.

A different problem is that it's likely the privileged people such as the wealthy or highly educated that decide to not have them for that reason and those are the people for whom it is the easiest to have a low carbon footprint.

I think the only solution is to make human life much more sustainable. Even halting population growth still doesn't solve the issue at hand and significantly reducing it brings plenty of trouble.

 

[Akuun]

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 descendants 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.

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.

I think these posts are similar to my view. I understand the sentiment that the world is going to shit, and I agree that it is, in many ways. But using this sentiment as moral grounds to not have kids is IMO jumping the gun and an overreaction to this issue.

I also agree with the sentiment that having kids while being aware about the environment yourself gives you a chance to do something about it. You can raise kids with awareness about the environment, and maybe future technology will allow them to live happy lives, despite the fuckups that happened before their time. It's not like you're dooming your kids to a life of suffering and therefore you're not going to have kids. By that logic, all of humanity is a waste of the environment and we should all die right now. But we don't, because life has more to it than that.

 

[MrNelson]

how would the world be completely uninhabitable if temperatures climbed 4 degrees? Lets pretend that claim is true, which most scientists and their research that I have read claim only portions of the earth would be uninhabitable at that temperature, if your average summer temperature is 90 and that changes it 94 how does that change so much that we cannot live on earth any more?

Because there is a delicate balance that that 4 degree difference will fuck up.

Sure, a difference of 4 degrees wouldn't mean much to you, but there are so many species that would not survive. Species low on the food chain will die off and cause a domino effect going up the chain. The temperature change itself won't kill you, but all that will be affected by it will.

That's not even taking into account the changes in weather patterns that could happen. Droughts will become more common, weather events will become more catastrophic, etc.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Fixed for the most likely scenario.

Meh. Denmark has an allotment of free vasectomies every year. India has subsidies and even has tried things like giving free cars and TVs to people getting fixed. Yet no forced sterilization.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Don't you dare suggest Africa is in need of population control.
It really bugs me how people are already blaming Africa for overpopulation. How about keeping Asia and the rest of the developed/developing world in check. Africa is the last continent (next to AUS) you should even consider overpopulation control for.

Global south includes South and East Asia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North–South_divide

Not blaming Africa for all our ills. It sucks for developing economies, because us advanced economies got to where we are by generally polluting and being ignorant of the harm it was causing, and now those countries have to play by tougher rules. But them's the breaks.

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

I'm aware. As much as I like the Catholic Church for its social justice stance, their "natural family planning" approach is basically a rich, educated person's game. It's not at all an effective strategy for the world writ-large (or at least certainly not as effective as the pill, the condom, and the various other options available.)

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Ultimately the rich and greedy will survive. The bottom line of money (i.e. what the GOP cares of the most) will take care of them in the long run.

And in the new world, the GOP will still be around. Sigh...

 

[Vampirolol]

If your views about the world are so pessimistic that even giving a life to someone feels selfish or something, you are not ready. Same if you don't have any money.
But honestly, my parents gave life to my brother during the Cold War when world destruction was around the corner. And my grandparents were born in the 20's, in Europe, you know. And I'm sure that some of my relatives were born during the plague. I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for them, so I think that avoiding having children because of climate change may not be the solution.
It's like killing yorself because you're going to die and suffer anyway.

 

[Google]

Some posts in this thread are really fucked up.

So many ego-centrical, holier-than-thou opinions.

Wow.

 

[Krakatoa]

Because it costs a fortune to adopt.

Bullshit, I've adopted two kids and its cost me nothing.

 

[ascii42]

Because it costs a fortune to adopt.

Though adopting a child from foster care is relatively cheap, or even free.

 

[Sulik2]

always this crap. it's no more logical to say that it's selfish to have children than it is selfish to continue being alive. if you want to be consistent with that view then killing yourself as soon as possible is the only unselfish choice.

if we can't solve this problem and continue having children there is no point to it at all, we might as well have a global mass suicide and end it all now. so offer solutions instead, like make sure your child will be a positive force for the environment. At least that's leading with good example and something that has the power to inspire other people.
this doom and gloom stuff is why so many won't listen and rather live in denial than face the truth.

Give me evidence that humanity has any hopes of stopping the societal collapse climate change and automation are going to bring about. Every single bit of news and reporting ibread points to humanity doing nothing to stop or address either and that's before republicans destroy regulation in the USA. I don't exactly have a positive outlook for the future. Plus mass migrations, disease and war from the pressures of climate change combined with a turn to right wing insanity in most of the western world and I view the long term prospects of human civilization as pretty much zero. I'm not bringing a kid into that and if the world starts to go to hell in my lifetime I will put a bullet in my head. Until then I will try to enjoy the end of the golden age of humanity on this planet. There is nothing any of us can do unless by some miracle we had a global French revolution style uprising to change the world. That will never happen either. Humanity civilization is doomed in the next 50 - 150 years.

 

[Dancing Queen]

Because it costs a fortune to adopt.

The irony...

 

[Ultima_5]

every generation always thinks they're the last and will see the fall of civilization.

Spoiler

well be fine.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

You know, this brings me back to a discussion ive had numerous times with friends. The US is only going to go downhill as we go along because the educated people either arent having kids or only have kids they can fully support meanwhile the poorly educated (who Trump loves) have numerous kids whether they can support them or not.

So you think by not having kids you are doing us a favor when really the educated and rational people need to have more kids so they can come of age and cancel out the climate deniers at the voting booth.

 

[John Rabbit]

the wife and I are likely to adopt if we have children for just this reason and a few others that are medically related.

Bullshit, I've adopted two kids and its cost me nothing.

how old were they? just wondering. the little research i've done suggests the costs go down the older the child.

 

[Blader]

I was ambivalent to outright opposed to having kids for much of my life. Since getting together with my girlfriend, I'd upgraded that possibility to 0-1 kids. The election actually might have pushed me over to the edge into having one. I recognize the magnitude of crises he/she would undoubtedly face even when they're my age now (that's weird to think about). At the same time, this election convinced me that having a kid and raising them right is more needed than ever now.

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.

That sure would be nice, but you're unfortunately quite provably wrong.

 

[Ooccoo]

If you start living in fear of death, then you don't live at all. What I mean is you shouldn't stop having kids because of climate change. There will always be wars, floods, etc. Being pessimistic about our world won't help.

 

[Krakatoa]

the wife and I are likely to adopt if we have children for just this reason and a few others that are medically related.
how old were they? just wondering. the little research i've done suggests the costs go down the older the child.

Two girls, aged 2 and 5.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I don't think the rolleyes gif exists that accurately encapsulates how ridiculous the tone of this thread is.

 

[Geist-]

Sure, Neogaf is an echo chamber of "The End is Near"-types. The US is not the world and regardless of how bleak the future US administration looks, there's been some good progress fighting climate change. If the US doesn't lead, Europe, China, and/or India will. And if Governments fight against the inevitable, capitalism will force the issue. Coal is already being phased out because it's more expensive than more energy efficient alternatives, Oil has been on the decline for what seems like decades now. Energy sustainability is the future, and there are a lot of very smart people working on solutions for the climate problem.

There's no guarantee everything will work out, and I'm not saying people should start having 10 kids, but overpopulation is not the problem everyone makes it out to be. There are much more effective methods of fighting climate change than to stop having kids.

 

[commedieu]

If I was in a third world country..possibly. but being born in the usa is going to give my daughter a kick-start on the rations.

 

[Blader]

Sure, Neogaf is an echo chamber of "The End is Near"-types. The US is not the world and regardless of how bleak the future US administration looks, there's been some good progress fighting climate change. If the US doesn't lead, Europe, China, and/or India will. And if Governments fight against the inevitable, capitalism will force the issue. Coal is already being phased out because it's more expensive than more energy efficient alternatives, Oil has been on the decline for what seems like decades now. Energy sustainability is the future, and there are a lot of very smart people working on solutions for the climate problem.

There's no guarantee everything will work out, and I'm not saying people should start having 10 kids, but overpopulation is not the problem everyone makes it out to be. There are much more effective methods of fighting climate change than to stop having kids.

I think it's less an issue of "do I want to contribute to overpopulation?" and more to do with "do I want to subject my kid to massive environmental disasters, flooded coastlines, refugee crises and wars sparked over climate change, when they're just 30-40 years old and have kids of their own?"

 

[Soapbox Killer]

People been saying this for years. I believe if the day comes we should stop having kids the world is lost.

Children are our only hope.

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

maybe your unborn child will be the one to assassinate the next hitler

 

[Geist-]

I think it's less an issue of "do I want to contribute to overpopulation?" and more to do with "do I want to subject my kid to massive environmental disasters, flooded coastlines, refugee crises and wars sparked over climate change, when they're just 30-40 years old and have kids of their own?"

Most of that stuff is already happening now and has always happened throughout history. Most people still manage to find happiness in spite of those circumstances.

 

[The Mule]

"... what you’d do is cut his throat open right now."

Best thing for the planet is for all of us to kill ourselves right now.

 

[Skinpop]

Give me evidence that humanity has any hopes of stopping the societal collapse climate change and automation are going to bring about. Every single bit of news and reporting ibread points to humanity doing nothing to stop or address either and that's before republicans destroy regulation in the USA. I don't exactly have a positive outlook for the future. Plus mass migrations, disease and war from the pressures of climate change combined with a turn to right wing insanity in most of the western world and I view the long term prospects of human civilization as pretty much zero. I'm not bringing a kid into that and if the world starts to go to hell in my lifetime I will put a bullet in my head. Until then I will try to enjoy the end of the golden age of humanity on this planet. There is nothing any of us can do unless by some miracle we had a global French revolution style uprising to change the world. That will never happen either. Humanity civilization is doomed in the next 50 - 150 years.

I'm not saying that you must make children, I'm simply saying that calling it selfish is illogical.
As for the prospects of human civilization: nobody knows exactly what will happen. I think if we get through this and possibly enter a post scarcity economy at the turn of the century then life - like ours is much better than what it was like 200 years ago will be much better 100 years from now. In the meantime 90% of us might perish, or maybe 10% or 5%. who knows what breakthroughs lies ahead and how that will change your projected future. a hundred years ago people couldn't even imagine things like computers and the internet. it's good to keep that in mind.
Would you have preferred it if your ancestors decided to end your bloodline because they thought ww 2 would end the world?

 

[Fuchsdh]

There's no guarantee everything will work out, and I'm not saying people should start having 10 kids, but overpopulation is not the problem everyone makes it out to be. There are much more effective methods of fighting climate change than to stop having kids.

True, but the overpopulation is the crucial exacerbating factor. We could have been merrily polluting same as we always were for hundreds of years without any major effects if we only had a billion or two people in the world.

I think at this point the Malthusian fear has been proven wrong, but population growth still comes with massive negative externalities.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Give me evidence that humanity has any hopes of stopping the societal collapse climate change and automation are going to bring about. Every single bit of news and reporting ibread points to humanity doing nothing to stop or address either and that's before republicans destroy regulation in the USA. I don't exactly have a positive outlook for the future. Plus mass migrations, disease and war from the pressures of climate change combined with a turn to right wing insanity in most of the western world and I view the long term prospects of human civilization as pretty much zero. I'm not bringing a kid into that and if the world starts to go to hell in my lifetime I will put a bullet in my head. Until then I will try to enjoy the end of the golden age of humanity on this planet. There is nothing any of us can do unless by some miracle we had a global French revolution style uprising to change the world. That will never happen either. Humanity civilization is doomed in the next 50 - 150 years.

Just like humanity was doomed during the Cold War. Or World War II, or World War I, or the Black Death, or the Plague of Justinian, or the Antonine Plague, or the countless other existential crises that have been inflicted on humanity since the start. Humans have a remarkable penchant for destruction, but an even bigger one for self-preservation.

 

[spekkeh]

Nuclear war is still 10000% more dangerous to our existence than climate change.

 

[Geist-]

Give me evidence that humanity has any hopes of stopping the societal collapse climate change and automation are going to bring about. Every single bit of news and reporting ibread points to humanity doing nothing to stop or address either and that's before republicans destroy regulation in the USA. I don't exactly have a positive outlook for the future. Plus mass migrations, disease and war from the pressures of climate change combined with a turn to right wing insanity in most of the western world and I view the long term prospects of human civilization as pretty much zero. I'm not bringing a kid into that and if the world starts to go to hell in my lifetime I will put a bullet in my head. Until then I will try to enjoy the end of the golden age of humanity on this planet. There is nothing any of us can do unless by some miracle we had a global French revolution style uprising to change the world. That will never happen either. Humanity civilization is doomed in the next 50 - 150 years.

Give me evidence they it will cause a collapse, because what you're referring to is speculation of the future and not evidence that collapse is inevitable.

 

[Captainbojanglesiii]

I'm sure there are people in previous generations who were wondering the same thing. The Baby Boomers were born right after a god damn global war, and their parents still went through with it even with the idea of impending nuclear destruction.

And before someone jumps on my neck in this thread, yes, the future, in some respect looks bleak, but I'm relatively confident we'll work to make solutions. I don't want kids, but climate change has exactly zero input on that decision, but people who genuinely want to have kids should take the chance, but that''s just how I feel.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Don't you dare suggest Africa is in need of population control.
It really bugs me how people are already blaming Africa for overpopulation. How about keeping Asia and the rest of the developed/developing world in check. Africa is the last continent (next to AUS) you should even consider overpopulation control for.

Africa may not be overpopulated right now, but if current/projected rates of growth continue, it will be. Some estimates have its population going from 1 billion in 2000 to 4 billion in 2100.

 

[Blader]

Most of that stuff is already happening now and has always happened throughout history. Most people still manage to find happiness in spite of those circumstances.

We've barely scratched the surface of climate-related shit headed our way.

Just like humanity was doomed during the Cold War. Or World War II, or World War I, or the Black Death, or the Plague of Justinian, or the Antonine Plague, or the countless other existential crises that have been inflicted on humanity since the start. Humans have a remarkable penchant for destruction, but an even bigger one for self-preservation.

Well, all of those events resulted in many thousands to millions of people dying, too, so I'm not sure that's any comfort here. :lol

 

[Triscuitable]

Africa may not be overpopulated right now, but if current/projected rates of growth continue, it will be. Some estimates have its population going from 1 billion in 2000 to 4 billion in 2100.

What I'm curious about is how the carbon footprint of the average person living in Africa is reflective of the average carbon footprint in the United States.

I'd wager the difference is absolutely staggering.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

I think it's less an issue of "do I want to contribute to overpopulation?" and more to do with "do I want to subject my kid to massive environmental disasters, flooded coastlines, refugee crises and wars sparked over climate change, when they're just 30-40 years old and have kids of their own?"

These changes will not happen over night. Climate change isn't going to spark any major wars in the developed world due to renewable becoming more of a thing especially water recycling. Anytime climate change is brought up it's all doom and gloom and nothing is ever said about the previous and continued efforts to change. Y'all act like everyone's just sitting around with their hands under the ass watching the world slowly die.

In truth, even if humans stopped polluting right now nothing would change for decades or centuries. There's an acceptable level of harm that has been passively agreed on AKA parts of the world will become inhabitable by humans without special infrastructure, however these are already areas where heat is abundant. Water will slowly rise to the point where pumps and other systems will become commonplace (in areas that can afford it -- which is the developed world).

Our kids will endure just fine. War will populate the more unstable regions, trade and transparency are horrible for war.

With all the bickering the world's governments do, they are doing quite well. The world would be more fucked if governments tried to shut down natural resources within a short time span.